Government Functions: Dispersal

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to transfer more government work from London and the South East to other parts of the United Kingdom with lower employment opportunities.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, individual departments and agencies are free to make their own decisions about location and facilities on the basis of operational requirements and value for money. However, the existing dispersal of many Civil Service functions across the UK has worked well, and the Government believe that the administration of public service benefits from that national and regional diversity. The Government will continue to keep the matter under serious consideration and review.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In the past, governments faced with problems of recruitment and retention and housing shortages for civil servants have been prepared to undertake major reviews to identify blocks of work that could be shifted to the provinces to ease those problems. Have the Government considered doing that? If not, why not?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that, in the past, there were fundamental reviews. There has been a marked shift away from Civil Service employment in London and the South East region since 1976. The Government take such matters seriously, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be encouraged by some of the comments contained in today's White Paper on the development of our regions. We keep the matter under careful review all the time.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that modern communications technology has substantially removed the old distance problem? Does he also agree—I am sure that he will—that the North East benefited enormously from the movement by government and business to that region during a period of severe industrial change?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has anticipated my reply: we recognise those benefits. Modern communications make it much easier for outposts and departments located in other parts of the country to connect with headquarters departments located at the centre. There are economic benefits to be had from a policy of dispersal; those benefits have been widely appreciated over the past 25 years.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the slowness of British Telecom in taking broadband technology to rural parts of England and Wales is a serious inhibition to the transfer of high-value employment to those regions? Will the Government take steps to kick BT into spreading broadband technology at a faster rate?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an interesting contribution to the debate, even if he went a little wider than the Question. I am sure that what he said is relevant, and we take careful account of such matters.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, there was a row over the establishment of the national cattle traceability centre in Cumberland in 1998, when civil servants opposed the move. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker—then an agriculture Minister—overturned the recommendation made by the civil servants and moved the centre to Cumbria. Does not that show that, sometimes, civil servants' objections must simply be overruled?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is widely appreciated in the House. I am sure that he was entirely right in what he did. Of course, operational considerations must be assessed in making such important decisions.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the state of the regional economies varies considerably? There is overheating in the South East and spare capacity in other regions. Although the RDAs and the proposals for regional government may be welcome for many reasons, one of the consequences of that policy is that every region looks to maximise its own growth. There is a lack of co-ordination in the dispersal of government functions throughout the country, and little thought is given at the centre of government to balancing regional economies.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot agree that there is a lack of co-ordination. Our policies demonstrate that we are well co-ordinated. The noble Lord made the important point that regions are keen to promote themselves and ensure, rightly, that they get a fair share of the action and a fair slice of the cake.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister remember that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, asked, "Why not?", in his supplementary question? The Minister does not appear to have answered the question.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the question. I apologise to your Lordships' House if I have not. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe made an important point about a matter that the Government consider carefully, in the light of operational needs and the pressures on each department.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister's assurance that the matter is kept assiduously under review, is it not the case that, on 9th January, the Deputy Prime Minister insisted that,
	"no assessment has been made,"
	of the scope for relocation of the executive functions of government departments?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my reply was not inconsistent with that. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was speaking wisely, as he does at all times.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will not the proposals in today's White Paper make it more difficult to disperse work to different parts of the country? Each part that has a regional assembly, including London, will jealously guard its own employment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, reading the runes of government policy is something that we all do. In the light of the debate about regionalism and the importance of the regions, the noble Lord must reflect that the announcements made today will probably make things easier, rather than harder.

Consolidation Bills

Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which consolidation Bills will be considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills before 31st July this year.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the European Parliamentary Elections Bill on 30th April. That will be the only consolidation Bill to be introduced before the Summer Recess. But the Government have also introduced legislation like the Land Registration Bill and support projects like the Tax Law Rewrite Project, which modernise legislation and bring it together in one Act, even though they are not pure consolidations.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply so far as it goes. Will the Government persuade the Joint Committee to undertake much more consolidation? We should bear in mind the fact that Acts of Parliament which have been amended by other Acts are difficult for people to understand, including judges. For that reason, lack of consolidation leads to longer and more expensive cases in the courts.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, certainly I endorse what the noble Lord says with regard to the importance of consolidation. Indeed, in 1975 the noble Lord was himself one of the prime movers in highlighting that as an issue. Quite rightly, the noble Lord continues to draw attention to the problem today.
	The importance of consolidation has not changed, but there are now many more ways in which people can keep up to date. Not the least of those is the fact that our legislation is now available online so that references can be made with the greatest of ease. Judges currently sitting in our courts are perhaps a little more familiar with IT procedures than they were in the past.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is a great need to consolidate a number of Bills dealing with environmental issues? I do not believe that any attempt has been made at consolidation since 1981. Recently we have passed a number of new Acts, making it extremely difficult for NGOs to understand the legislation. Will my noble friend look at this problem? Not only is it time consuming and confusing for people outside; it is also very expensive.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have been happy to accept that consolidation in general is a consummation devoutly to be wished. However, priority has to be given to legislation which forms a part of the Government's agenda and is of the greatest importance to the citizens of our country. When one looks at matters of consolidation in relation to other issues, one can see that priority has been given to the correct kinds of legislation, certainly in this Session and every Session since 1997.

Lord Brightman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Social Security Administration Act 1992 has been amended by no fewer than 18 Acts of Parliament? In Part VI, dealing with enforcement, every single one of the original sections has either been repealed or amended, while 14 new sections have been added. However, there is still no consolidation in sight. Is this legislative quagmire acceptable?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is always right in terms of detail. His strictures aimed at the Government in relation to other matters have been taken on board. Thus, in the most recent legislation to come before the House, the noble and learned Lord will see that the cross-referencing to which he usually refers has been assiduously applied. In relation to the particular Bill he mentioned, I can say no more than that we shall continue to ensure clarity. I can confirm that this is one area where we shall continue with our endeavours.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, sat through the proceedings on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, as I did. Does she agree that, over the years, leasehold legislation has become completely chaotic and that this area is a prime target for consolidation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree that the Commonhold and Leasehold Bill was a fine piece of legislation. We did much to consolidate the position in this area, as well as reforming and refreshing the law. However, I must accept that there is still more to be done. I am sure that the noble Lord will join me in saying that the Land Registration Bill was a fine piece of work. In that Bill we pulled together 77 years-worth of reform and amendment in one piece of legislation. I am sure that that exercise also gave pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yet again I believe that it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, twice. Does the noble Baroness not agree that almost total incomprehensibility is not to be regarded as a virtue in legislation? If the noble Baroness requires a little light reading, or something to put her to sleep at night, she should take a look at either the Police Reform Bill or the legislation concerned with the National Health Service—both presently before Parliament. I think that she will find in both of them a cure for insomnia and will have to acknowledge that both are monuments to incomprehensibility.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the point being made by the noble Lord, but I should stress that both Bills must pass through this House and through the other place. If I have learnt only one thing, it is the contrast between the incomprehensibility of a Bill coming to this House and its greatly improved state when it leaves. If a Bill is incomprehensible, I would say to noble Lords, "We have more work to do".

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the problem is not consolidation of legislation, but the frequency with which it is amended?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course amendment is not always in the Government's hands. However, when something needs to be fixed, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that that is done. It is a duty which we have sought to discharge with energy, precision and effectiveness.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the Minister for complimenting the House on the amendments it has made to legislation recently. Having said how important consolidation is, can she remind us just how poor the record of the Government is by telling us how few consolidation measures they have initiated by comparison with the previous government?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept the premise as the number of consolidation Bills does not in fact reflect the amount of reform and consolidation that has taken place. I have mentioned the reform and consolidation inherent in Bills such as the Land Registration Bill and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. I can tell your Lordships that between 1997 and 1998 there were two measures, the Petroleum Act and the Audit Commission Act. Between 1999 and 2000 there was the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act. I am sure the House will not want me to tire it with all the other Bills that this House and the other place have managed to pass in the past five years, all of which were of great importance to our country and our citizens.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, would my noble friend—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is time for the next Question.

Urban Green Spaces

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to implement the conclusions of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force report.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Urban Green Spaces Task Force published its final report on 7th May, Green Spaces, Better Places. We plan to announce our response to the conclusions and recommendations of the report in July.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for that reply. I was particularly heartened that greater efforts are to be made to engage with young people to use urban green spaces better. I also welcome the efforts of the Children's Play Council in this regard and the report that it published on 7th May entitled More than Swings and Roundabouts.
	What further support do the Government intend to give to involve young people in regenerating their parks and play areas and, particularly important to me, what are the ways in which we might promote inter-generational partnership? I should declare an interest as chair of the Experience Corps, which is a government-supported initiative to involve many more people of 50 and over in volunteering.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning the Experience Corps, of which she is the chair, and which will make a major contribution to engaging older people in volunteering. As regards engaging younger people in the use of green spaces, what is at the heart of both Green Spaces, Better Places and the current cross-cutting review into public space in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review is that, if the quality of existing green spaces and parks is improved, more people will use them. That is achieved by focusing on who is responsible for keeping them in proper condition and making them much more accessible to young and old alike. That is the process in which we are engaged; we are looking at the recommendations in this report and at those in the cross-cutting review.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, Green Spaces, Better Places is the normal sort of tongue-twister with which we have to deal in titles of reports nowadays. However, on first looking through the report, I congratulate its authors on what appears to be an extremely valuable and useful contribution to the vital green spaces in our towns and cities. Would the Minister agree with what appears to be a vital part of the report, that during the next five years a capital contribution of £0.5 billion will be required,
	"to begin reversing the decline of urban parks and green spaces and to create new good-quality ones"?
	I repeat, £0.5 billion pounds over five years. In the Government's response to the report, will they not only agree to find ways of contributing that money, but also find ways to reverse the catastrophic decline in revenue spending on parks which has taken place over most of the past 50 years in the face of dramatic cuts in, and pressure on, local government spending?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome for the report, which makes a number of very important suggestions. He is absolutely right that it calls for £500 million more to be spent over the next five years, and it also calls for partnership arrangements in relation to parks which will improve delivery arrangements and park maintenance. As the noble Lord will understand, I am not in a position to give any indication about what the response to that report may be, but I can tell him that the response will come in July.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister appears to have acknowledged that maintaining open spaces costs money. Would he take back the need for clear advice on the use of planning gain to fund the maintenance of open spaces?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, planning gain is a useful way of ensuring that funds are available for the maintenance of parks in certain cases. Just as important is the design of public buildings and public parks because that contributes hugely to the quality of the parks and the ability to maintain them. The planning system has a very important role to play in the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and in relation to the design of parks.

Zimbabwe

Lord Freeman: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to respond to President Mugabe's declaration of a "state of disaster" in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government of Zimbabwe have been slow to recognise the food crisis and to declare a state of disaster. The Department for International Development saw potential for crisis last year, arising from complex causes including the Zimbabwe Government's ill-managed land reform programme. The situation has now been exacerbated by drought. DfID commenced supplementary feeding programmes through non-governmental organisations in September 2001 and is currently delivering assistance to around 400,000 poor Zimbabweans.

Lord Freeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she accept that, although drought is certainly one factor, some of the causes of the food shortage and possible famine are man-made and are the responsibility of the Zimbabwean regime; for example, the illegal seizure of farm land and the failure to replant? Will the Minister ensure that emergency aid is given direct to the people of Zimbabwe and not through the present regime?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thought that I made it absolutely clear in my original response that some of the responsibility rests on the Government of Zimbabwe, in particular on their land reform programme. Indeed, UNDP last year stressed that it thought that the land reform programme was not sustainable. As to the second question, our bilateral feeding programme uses local NGO networks, churches and schools for distribution and we avoid local government structures to mitigate against politicisation of that process. I am aware that there are concerns. We are concerned that it is difficult to screen out political selection under the World Food Programme process. It is an area which we have picked up with the World Food Programme and which we shall monitor.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the lack of fuel in Zimbabwe may be another reason why food, which must be given as humanitarian aid, cannot be brought to the people who deserve it?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree. Distribution is a problem, not only in Zimbabwe but in other parts of southern Africa which are also facing a crisis in terms of food availability.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the conference between Zanu-PF and the MDC, planned for next week on the initiative of President Mbeki and President Obasanjo, still expected to take place? If so, would not one of the most important issues for discussion be precisely the deplorable agricultural situation? On the commercial farms in particular, it is reported that many animals are suffering very badly and that production has fallen catastrophically.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the next meeting is due to take place on Monday, 13th May. As noble Lords know, these meetings are being held under the auspices of the governments of Nigeria and South Africa. I do not know the agenda for that meeting but I am aware that there are concerns about the growing economic crisis in Zimbabwe. I anticipate that this is one of the issues that particularly the Government of South Africa will want to see addressed.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, do not the Human Rights Forum's shocking statistics—55 deaths and 960 incidents of torture from politically motivated violence between January and April—show what an unsuitable channel for aid is Mr Mugabe and his cronies?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that we have condemned all acts of violence in Zimbabwe. We are concerned that there continues to be harassment and violence, particularly towards the opposition. That is why we channel our aid through NGOs. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, we are working with the World Food Programme, which is using local structures, including the chiefs structure, to ensure that any kind of complaint is investigated. If the problems continue, the World Food Programme will consider suspending food aid in those particular areas. We all hope that it will not come to that.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the real disaster in Zimbabwe is the gross abuse of political power and that its victims are the institutions of law and order, religion, culture, the media and the very structures of society that make for any civilised community? Does she further accept that until those issues are addressed there is not a great deal that we can do except ameliorate some of the problems?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is important that the institutions of law and order, culture, the media, freedom of expression and human rights should be seen to be observed in Zimbabwe. We have all expressed concern about that. But, as I have said repeatedly in the House, we are dealing with an independent state which, given the economic crisis facing Zimbabwe, clearly does not put the concerns of its own citizens before its need for political power.

Lord Acton: My Lords, I believe my noble friend gave a figure of £400,000. In view of the state of the disaster, is this figure being kept under review and is there any chance of it being increased?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I apologise if I said £400,000; it is 400,000 people. We have committed £6 million for feeding programmes and emergency medical supplies through the UN system.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted the reports of starvation in Matabeleland in particular? Is she satisfied that by arranging for the distribution of aid through the NGO community an even and fair distribution will occur as between Matabeleland and the rest of the country? Can she say what are the implications for Zimbabwe of the general drought and shortage of foodstuffs in southern Africa as a whole? Will that issue be considered at the G8 summit in June and discussed with NePAD on that occasion?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we and the World Food Programme have people on the ground carrying out assessments. The channelling of money and food for distribution is across the board in Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. It is important that we look at all areas in Zimbabwe.
	As to the impact on the region as a whole, there is a problem in that we have a food crisis in Malawi and in Lesotho as well as in Zimbabwe. There are shortages across the region. The price of grain has gone up considerably and there are distribution problems. I was at a meeting this morning where we were considering whether or not this issue would be raised in June as part of the G8 Africa action plan, but we have to await developments.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great deal of food aid is disappearing into the black market? I know that as a fact from a friend who lives there.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we do not have evidence that food aid is disappearing in that way. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in our feeding programmes we use local NGO networks, churches and schools for distribution. There have been some isolated incidents of violence and intimidation against distribution workers and attempts by militia groups to affect the targeting of the food. In all cases where that occurred, feeding was suspended pending resolution of the difficulties. As to the World Food Programme, it is committed to investigating all reports, and to resolve them it has deployed additional programme and monitoring staff. Where serious abuse is confirmed it will suspend distribution if intervention at ministry level fails.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while recognising fully our responsibility to provide humanitarian aid, does my noble friend agree that in doing so we are likely to be propping up the very person who contributed largely to the disaster? Is there not more we can do to ensure that there are fair elections in that country to remove Mugabe from office?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are totally committed to free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. We have made it absolutely clear that we did not consider the outcome of the last elections to be free and fair. But we cannot punish the people of Zimbabwe.

Regional Assemblies

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and I are presenting our White Paper, Your Region Your Choice—more democracy, less bureaucracy. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
	"Right across the United Kingdom and Europe there has been a growing recognition of the importance of regions as a focus of economic growth and social identity.
	"This Government have challenged the notion that the only decisions worth making are those taken in Whitehall and Westminster. We recognise that people in Birmingham or Bradford, Liverpool or Lowestoft, Falmouth or Faversham, Newcastle or Norwich, deserve to have their voice heard as well. We believe that Britain as a whole cannot achieve its full potential unless all of our regions share in success and drive that success.
	"When we offered devolution, we placed our trust in the people of Scotland and Wales. Today I am announcing measures to bring decision-making closer to the people of England by strengthening the regional powers and by giving them the choice of regional government.
	"We trust the people to make that choice and, if they so wish, to choose to elect a regional assembly and give a new voice to their region. This White Paper gives effect to our manifesto commitment to provide for directly elected regional assemblies for those regions that want them.
	"My interest in regional policy goes back over 30 years. In the early 1980s Michael Foot asked me to draw up a new policy framework to secure agreement for devolution for Scotland, Wales and the English regions—which, as some of you will remember, was causing us a local difficulty. The result was our Alternative Regional Strategy, published in 1982, which set out a framework for devolving power to Scotland and Wales and decentralising power to the English regions.
	"Later, in 1994 I appointed Bruce Millan, the former Scottish Secretary and European Commissioner, to chair the Labour Party's Regional Policy Commission. His report, Renewing the Regions, said that,
	'without strong regional policy rooted in the regions themselves, and without firm commitment to decentralisation we are unable to develop our national economy to its full potential'.
	"Many of the ideas in this White Paper find their origins in those earlier pieces of work. I would like to express my appreciation to those who worked on these reports, some of whom are Members of this House today.
	"This Government have always recognised the regions' potential. In 1997 we inherited one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world. We have changed that. In our first term we devolved power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And in England we restored democratic city-wide government to London—abolished by the Opposition. We reformed local government. We strengthened and broadened the Government Offices for the Regions. We set up nine regional development agencies, which in their first two years created or safeguarded more than 80,000 jobs. And we helped establish a network of regional chambers and assemblies, which have improved accountability and given the regions a new voice.
	"Today's White Paper takes that a step further. It sets out a range of options for people in the English regions. But whatever they decide, this White Paper will strengthen regional policy across England.
	"In all regions we are giving extra resources and greater flexibility to the regional development agencies. In all regions, regional chambers will have greater responsibilities and will have a greater role in regional planning. In all regions we will give extra responsibilities to the Government Offices to strengthen regional decision-making and to ensure that government is joined up in the regions. But for those regions that wish to proceed to directly elected regional assemblies this White Paper sets out the process.
	"Members are well aware of the different needs and aspirations of our English regions. There is a strong and growing demand in some regions to have a distinct democratic voice and a greater say over their own future.
	"The people of the English regions should rightly have the same choice that we gave to the people of Scotland, Wales and London. This White Paper is about striking the right balance; it is about trusting the people; it is about responding to the needs of a modern, diverse, and more progressive society; and it is all about creating the conditions for greater prosperity and reducing disparity in and between our regions.
	"The key is flexibility. That requires a pragmatic approach and the consent of the people of the regions. Where there is a referendum in favour of them we will establish elected regional assemblies. And I believe where one or two regions lead, others will follow.
	"This White Paper sets out the powers, functions and financial arrangements for these new elected regional assemblies. They will have real power and funding to improve the quality of life of people in their region—particularly by improving regional economic performance. Indeed, raising growth by just half a per cent for the worst-performing regions would increase our national wealth by £20 billion in 10 years. And, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report made clear, if all regions raised their productivity to the national average, the average person in the United Kingdom would be £1,000 a year better off.
	"Regional assemblies will be responsible for developing joined-up regional strategies on issues such as: sustainable development; economic development and regeneration; skills and employment; planning; transport; housing; health improvement; and culture.
	"Assemblies will have a range of powers to help them deliver those strategies. For example, they will allocate funding for economic development, housing, tourism, arts and sport. And they will be responsible for the regional development agencies—appointing the board and approving the regional economic strategy.
	"Regional assemblies will be funded primarily by central government grant; and they will have complete freedom to spend that grant as they judge best. We will agree targets with them and provide a single pot for regional government.
	"In addition, they will have the power to raise further funds through a precept on council tax and, indeed, through borrowing. Naturally, budgets will vary depending on the population of each region. But on current expenditure the budget for the North East would be around £350 million a year, and in the North West it would be around £730 million. On top of that, assemblies will have a direct influence over large amounts of central government's public expenditure—some extra £500 million in the North East and £1.3 billion in the North West. This is over and above the £3 billion spent by local authorities.
	"Elected assemblies need to be big enough to properly represent the interests of the different communities in the region, but not so big that they become unmanageable. We therefore propose that assemblies should have 25 to 35 members. For an assembly of that size it is important that there is broad political representation in the assembly.
	"In Scotland, Wales and London we have used the additional member system of proportional representation to elect the members of the Parliament and Assemblies. On balance we have decided to use the same system for English regional assemblies. The boundaries of each region will be the existing ones used by the Government Offices for the Regions and the regional development agencies.
	"In addition to elected regional assemblies, we would like to see greater involvement of groups such as the business community, trade unions, voluntary organisations and environmental groups. We want to encourage the regional assemblies to draw on the experience and skills of individuals in the region who may not be able to stand for election themselves.
	"We want to build on the experience of the Scottish Civic Forum, the partnership arrangements in Wales, the London Civic Forum and the arrangements introduced in a number of English regional chambers. Different regions may want to use different models and we are specifically asking for views on this. For example, there could be appointed assembly members who could play an active part in the role of assemblies but without the right to vote.
	"Regional assemblies represent a new tier of political accountability. Regional assemblies will work closely with their local authority partners. However, in areas that currently have county and district councils, an assembly would add a third tier of government. We believe it would be more efficient and simple if, in those cases, we moved to a fully unitary system of local government. So where a decision is made to hold a referendum for an elected assembly—and only in those regions—there will first be an independent review of local government structures conducted by the Boundary Committee for England. This review—before the referendum—will examine the two-tier areas of the region and make proposals for a wholly unitary local government system. Existing unitary authorities in the region will not be affected.
	"We believe that when a referendum is held voters should know what the proposed structure of local government would be and be clear who would do what in their area. I should emphasise that these reviews will take place only in those regions where a referendum will be held; and any restructuring of local government would take place only if there is a 'Yes' vote in that referendum.
	"This White Paper sets out the process and timetable for establishing elected regional assemblies. Before we decide which region or regions should hold the first referendum, we will consult all the English regions on our proposals. The Secretary of State will decide whether a region should hold a referendum, primarily by assessing the level of public interest in the region. In reaching his conclusion, he will seek the views of the regional chamber, local authorities and other key stakeholders. We intend to introduce legislation to provide for referendums and local government reviews as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	"Our intention is to allow for a referendum to be held before the end of this Parliament. After a region has voted for an elected assembly, we intend to introduce further legislation enabling assemblies to be established. This would make it possible for the first regional assembly to be up and running early in the next Parliament—under a Labour Government, of course.
	"In conclusion, all English regions will benefit from our strong regional policy, and we will continue to develop the regional structures and agencies we put in place in our first term. In addition, our White Paper now offers the opportunity of a new constitutional settlement for the English regions—a choice which has been denied to them for far too long.
	"The opponents of these proposals must answer this question: if devolution is good enough for Scotland and Wales, why would they deny that choice to the people of England? Our proposals today will give the regions of England new choices, new powers, and a new voice. By devolving power, we can elevate our democracy. By empowering our regions, we can engage people more effectively. By harnessing the energy of the regions, we can drive forward the nation's economic growth. By embracing diversity, we can strengthen the United Kingdom. And by liberating the potential of our regions, we will be helping Britain to prosper. I commend these proposals to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. At least he has had a quieter background against which to deliver it, as he has not been competing against the "Byers Show" which has been taking place in the other House.
	I should make it clear from the outset that on this side of the House we are against regional government. This Government have already carved up this country into three, and they have foisted a further layer of bureaucracy on London—all in the name of choice by the people—which they now extol for the regions.
	In that regard, it is worth recalling that the votes in the three referendums that took place to bring about those changes accounted for less than 25 per cent of the population, and therefore expressed the will of a tiny minority of the electorate. Will there be a threshold of a significant proportion of the population taking part on this occasion?
	The same problem is in prospect again. Allied to that is the prospect of further fractionalisation of this country into incoherent regions that bear little relationship to each other and in many cases do not have a commonality of interest within them. Devon, Cornwall, Northumberland and Durham would all vanish. Does the Minister recall the controversy over the loss of the Ridings in Yorkshire? How much worse would be the loss of Yorkshire itself. Bristol is nearer to Brighton than it is to Falmouth, but it would be in a common region.
	Local government should be for local people and by local people. We do not need a further tier of government, which removes local accountability, is decided by proportional representation, introduces the possibility of fringe parties and creates more full-time, well rewarded political jobs. Nor do we need the inevitable reorganisation that is threatened—the abolition of the county councils, which are the historic seats of this country's government, established before the Domesday Book and well in advance of May 1997, the start of current history as seen by this Government.
	There is little point in the Deputy Prime Minister saying that this will come about only by the will of the people. It has been the clear intent of this Government since the Prime Minister said that regional government could come about only if another tier of local government was removed, as is the case with the proposals that county councils should be shorn of their role in structural planning. Is it the intention that in the areas where regions are put forward, that will mean the end of the county councils?
	It is also clear that, even if the electorate do not vote for elected regional assemblies, far greater powers will be given to those greatest quangos in the sky, the regional development agencies and the regional planning bodies. That means further powers in the hands of non-elected officials.
	There are many questions that need to be asked. I hope and expect that there will be an opportunity to do so in a full discussion on the White Paper in this House. Until then, will the Minister say whether the Government are proposing that regional government will be established before or after a review of local government structures within it? As the Deputy Prime Minister said last year:
	"Of course we will need to make sure the structure of local government fits with any new regional tier, and that may require some adjustments".
	That may prove to be the understatement of all understatements.
	Will the Minister give an estimate of the likely total costs of the establishment of the regional structure and the consequential reorganisation? On the basis of the costs associated with the Deputy Prime Minister's county council of Humberside, the rest would cost in the region of £2 billion to change. Is that a good use of taxpayers' money? Is the Minister aware that the Greater London Authority alone is spending £34 million a year on administration and that a precept on the council tax has increased by 30 per cent in two years?
	Will the grant to be given by the Government be top-sliced from the local government grant? If so, does that anticipate a reallocation of resources for the rest? Will there be a review of the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland and Wales substantially greater funding per head of population than elsewhere, or will regions be bought by similar over-provision?
	I understand that today is Europe Day. Is it not ironic that this announcement should be made today? It brings the federalisation of this country ever closer to a federalised Europe. Perhaps Kent will be joined with Calais, Flanders and Wallonia—as it is already in the Interreg programme—as a European self-governing region. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell the House whether the regional government that he proposes—or that the Deputy Prime Minister proposes—would be able to deal directly with European institutions, bypassing the scrutiny of Parliament and doing their own deals for funding. Truly, Romano Prodi must be dancing on his tippy toes at the prospect of so much influence in this land.
	We believe that the general tide of post-war centralisation has gone too far under Labour. Under this Government, councils have been burdened with mountains of red tape and local democracy has been undermined. Regional government will not improve that; it will accelerate the trend. Far from giving power to local people, the proposals will take it further away. We do not believe that the White Paper has anything to offer that will enhance democracy in this country.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the principle of devolved government. I had better follow that up quickly by saying that the detailed proposals will require and deserve detailed consideration. We are enthusiasts for democracy and we recognise and celebrate the diversity of our country. We believe that it is entirely appropriate for the announcement to be made on Europe Day, given the role of the regions in Europe.
	I declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly. I hope that the Government will learn from the London experience. An executive mayor with an assembly whose role is pretty much limited to scrutiny may be the worst model of all. From my quick look at the White Paper, it appears that the Government have learnt that lesson, at least in their proposals for an executive consisting of a leader and a cabinet, though I am not sure whether that is a public or a private Labour Party matter. We certainly need something closer to the parliamentary than the presidential model.
	We are all aware of the electoral events in France, the Netherlands and our own cities over the past week. That highlights the need for every government to be relevant to their people. Electoral engagement follows power and delivery. Will the assemblies' powers be token or really strategic powers? Can the Minister assure the House that the assemblies will take down powers from central government, not take up powers from local government? Will they have all the relevant powers so that, for instance, health and housing—which I see are on the list—and tertiary education, to take but a few, are knitted in with economic and social development, as I believe they should be?
	I said that powers should not be taken up from local government. We regard it as appropriate that no change is made to the local government structure until elected regional government is in place. At that point, both local and regional tiers and the Electoral Commission can be involved in any change.
	Currently, there is an enormous raft of quangos. Will the regions have control, with power to define their shape and structure? I have never believed that the regional development agencies amount to democratic devolution; they are merely a degree of decentralisation. We shall need to examine the detail of the proposals on them. This may be one of the few points on which I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
	Will central government this time adopt a self-denying ordinance and keep their hands off regional issues? As happened with the Greater London Authority Bill, no doubt someone will count the number of references to the Secretary of State. I hope that they will not find that he scores higher than the new assemblies.
	Are the Government prepared to learn from two years' practical experience? I can speak only for London, but there is also experience from Wales and Scotland. That experience was gained at various levels including the human level. A new body needs to be of a size which facilitates the dynamics of the political process. In my experience, which includes a year of chairing the London Assembly, 25 members is too small a number for the breadth of responsibility involved and quite the wrong size for a full meeting at which everyone considers himself or herself a "Front Bencher" as it were by virtue of that small size and wants to have his say. I am aware of the representational role but I believe that the figure of 25 to 35 members is too small. I believe that all assembly members should be elected. Local government has managed to lose co-optees; it clouds the issue of accountability to have appointees.
	Does the Minister also recognise the need for shadow running? I know that the public want to see action and to see the pigeons banished from Trafalgar Square a week on Thursday following the election, but does the Minister accept that it is necessary for there to be sufficient time allocated to set up a new assembly? Two years into the process of working towards an effective operation in London I am still not sure whether I am involved in politics or in anthropology.
	Will the Minister also acknowledge that where the scrutiny arm has powers these need to be effective? I give merely one example. It is no good allowing the scrutiny arm to veto the totality of a budget if it cannot alter and control the powers of virement of the executive with regard to that budget.
	I refer to a serious point which I hope that we can correct with regard to London on the back of regional legislation. Does the Minister accept that access to information must be at least as good as it is in local government? In London we appear to have less access to policy development decisions of the Mayor than is the case at local level.
	Does the Minister accept that the legislation should be a framework? I make that heartfelt plea as one of those who sat through the proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill. It is not possible to anticipate all the detail that will be needed when this new form of government is in operation and certainly not to get the detail right if it is imposed in advance.
	Will the Minister consider the need to address the relationship of government offices to regional assemblies? The Government Office for London is now larger than it was when the GLA was created. I am unpersuaded that extra responsibilities given to government offices will achieve regional or, indeed, much other accountability.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will accept the good wishes of these Benches in regard to those who embark upon what I hope will be a fulfilling and effective venture.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support and good wishes. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that her party opposed devolution to Scotland but now supports it; it opposed devolution to Wales but now supports it; and it opposed devolution to London but now supports it. I understand from her remarks that her party opposes the regional government proposals in the document we are discussing. I am not sure when it may change its view in that regard.
	I turn to the specific questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She asked whether a threshold would have to be crossed in regard to a referendum. However, there is no reference to a threshold. The noble Baroness asked foursquare whether the proposals signalled the end of county councils. That matter was dealt with in the Statement. I draw the noble Baroness's attention to the relevant part of the Statement which states:
	"So where a decision is made to hold a referendum for an elected assembly—and only in those regions—there will first be an independent review of local government structures conducted by the Boundary Committee for England.
	This review—before the referendum—will examine the two-tier areas of the region and make proposals for wholly unitary local government. Existing unitary authorities in the region will not be affected".
	Therefore, it will be for the Boundary Committee for England to make recommendations on an independent basis as to how to produce a wholly unitary local government system in those parts of the region where there is to be a referendum and where there are two-tier arrangements for local government. How it proposes to do that is a matter for the independent review. That could involve the counties or the districts.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that it is extremely unlikely that a unitary authority would end up as a county? A unitary authority is a unitary authority and a county is a county. To try to pretend that a county would become a unitary authority seems to me to be utterly ridiculous if I may say so. I believe that the Minister confirms what I said; namely, that county councils will be abolished.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no doubt the bodies concerned will attach the importance they see fit to those opinions of the noble Baroness. The Isle of Wight and Shropshire are two areas with unitary counties. The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government would envisage a review of local government before such a change is proposed. The part of the Statement that I have just read out makes the position absolutely clear. As regards estimates of costs, I believe that the noble Baroness asked about the costs of an assembly and the costs of any local government reorganisation. As regards the costs of running an assembly, we would envisage a sum in the region of £25 million per annum. However, I am not in a position to give any realistic estimate of the costs of any reform of local government connected with that as I do not know what the reorganisation would involve.
	The noble Baroness asked whether the grant would be top-sliced from local government. The answer is "No". No review of the Barnett formula is envisaged. As regards whether it would be possible for any region with its own elected assembly to have direct relations with the European Union, the body which has relations with the European Union is obviously the United Kingdom. That is the constitutional position. There may be representative bodies in various towns where activities are carried out by the European Union but the body that relates to the European Union will continue to be the United Kingdom, as is the case in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a number of questions. However, many of them concerned advice. I accept them in the good spirit in which they were offered. I believe that she asked whether the powers of assemblies would be token or strategic. That is what I have written down. As the Statement made clear, they would have power to determine the strategic direction of the region. In addition, they would have specific powers to deliver on their strategies. I gave some examples of that. More detail on that matter is contained in the White Paper.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also asked whether the power would flow down from central government or up from local government. The power will flow down from central government. The question of whether assemblies would have power over quangos in the regions will depend on the quango concerned. I draw the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that assemblies would have power over RDAs, which are perhaps among the most significant bodies in a region. She asked whether government would keep their hands off regional issues. That is a slightly rhetorical question. Surely a White Paper that is designed to devolve down from Whitehall and Westminster to regions, whether or not they have elected regional assemblies, is a strong indication of a Government who are keen on genuine decentralisation.
	The Government are, of course, prepared to learn from existing experience. One of the issues that we need to debate is that of the size of regional assemblies. The noble Baroness drew attention to the problems of the London Assembly in that regard. As regards shadow running, obviously sensible arrangements must be made for the setting up of any elected regional assembly once a referendum indicates that it is wanted. Scrutiny powers need to be effective and will have to be debated. The noble Baroness drew attention to scrutiny powers in relation to budgets. I believe she said that the only power that was available was in effect to veto the whole budget. We shall need to consider that matter.
	Access to information is incredibly important for any government or legislative body. The proposal that legislation should involve a framework is plainly right. I believe that the noble Baroness was referring to the setting up of the assembly's legislation, not the referendum assembly. That will come only after legislation implementing the referendum procedure and after a referendum had voted "Yes". We should then move on to that legislation.
	The noble Baroness's point about the need to address the relationship between government and the regional assembly was of course correct. That will be a very important relationship. She concluded by offering the proposal her good wishes, for which I am very grateful.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister realise that in the North West, following the abolition of the county councils, having wholly unitary local government would be an appalling piece of constitutional vandalism? Can he not see that in the North West a combination of unitary authorities and a regional government would be bound to be dominated by Merseyside and Manchester, and that that would mean that the voice of those living in small towns and the countryside would be completely extinguished? People outside the conurbations would get nothing but hefty bills, fewer fields and more concrete.
	What on earth is all this nonsense on page three of the Statement about the people of the English regions having the same choice given to them as has been given to the people of Scotland? Regional government will be expensive, but the noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that it does not involve the devolution of powers that are remotely similar to powers that have been devolved to Scotland. It really is ridiculous and insulting to pretend that the proposals are an English answer to Scottish devolution.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, if the move to—

Noble Lords: Order.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise. On the noble Lord's first proposition—he referred to constitutional vandalism—I disagree. On whether there should be an elected regional assembly, that will be a matter for the region to decide in a referendum. Before it makes its decision in that regard, the precise consequences relating to local government will be known because the proposals require that the Boundary Committee has made its recommendations for bringing unitary authorities into being. People will know before they vote what the precise consequences in relation to local government are.
	On the comparison between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the proposals involve, for those regions that vote for them, the opportunity to have significant decentralisation of power from Whitehall and Westminster. There are people in north-west and north-east England—and in other regions—who believe that it is better that some of those important issues should be dealt with at a reasonable level, which is closer to where they live than Whitehall and Westminster.
	I should correct an error that I made earlier. I said that Shropshire was a unitary authority but I should have referred to Herefordshire. I was wrong in what I said and I apologise for that.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I welcome the Government's proposals to give the choice to English regions to repair their democratic deficit. Given that the Government have evolved different structures for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and differing proposals, including precepting for the English regions, which may not in the event prove adequate, will they consider building into primary legislation the power further to decentralise responsibilities and powers to the proposed assemblies, as is indicated in paragraph 4.50 of the White Paper?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his welcome. He, more than practically anyone else in the House, has experience of giving choice to those parts of the United Kingdom that want devolved assemblies. His views on this matter carry particular weight. I note his proposal, which we shall certainly consider.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, as someone who lives in the North West and who has been a passionate supporter of regional government for most of the past 50 years, I find it difficult to be enthusiastic about the White Paper. It is a good example of the fact that if one gives the Government a good idea, they will make a mess of it.
	Will the Government look again at the proposed electoral system? It is paraded as being proportional representation but it is no such thing; it involves semi-proportional representation at best. In regions such as the North West and the North East, it is likely to produce a permanent majority for the Labour Party.
	Will the Government look again at the proposed size of the assemblies? I refer not to political representation but to the representation of a large and diverse region such as the North West, which has a larger population than that in Scotland. The Minister said in the Statement that people in Liverpool deserve to have a voice. However, the people in places such as Carlisle—and even in Silloth, Nelson and Colne—deserve to have a voice. Under the proposals Cumbria would at best have perhaps two representatives. Is the proposal a recipe in the North West for permanent rule by the regional Labour Party mafia?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I disagree with that proposition. It is important to have broad political representation in the assembly. The noble Lord knows better than I do that if we seek to reach agreement—a broad consensus—on the precise form of the electoral system to be used, we should, unfortunately, never be able to do so; that is because, in relation to what is the best system, the issues and differences are so detailed, complex and wide. In Scotland, Wales and London we used the additional member system of proportional representation to elect Members of the Parliament and the Assemblies. On balance, we have decided to use the same system for English regional assemblies because we believe that it would produce broad political representation in those regional assemblies, as it did in the bodies to which I referred in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords—

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Bishop!

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, if my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham were here, he would warmly welcome the publication of the White Paper. He has been active in seeking to give voice to the north-east region. That is an example of the fact that, for all the diverse responses that will happen throughout the country, the voluntary sector and the Churches are already actively engaged in that process.
	I press the Minister on those proposals and the report. In the south-east of England, from Oxfordshire right round to Kent, I do not think that we shall be rushing for a regional assembly. Nevertheless, regionalisation has drawn the voluntary sector and the faith communities—I chair a faith forum—into the process. I want to hear a little more from the Minister on the future role when we formalise those arrangements in the legislation. We struggle, if I may say so, with the public sector sometimes in getting real roles in the democratic process for the voluntary sector and the faith communities. It is good to be consulted but the word "partnership" needs to have some substance to it. In the coming weeks, how do the Government intend to draw us into the consultation exercise in relation to that aspect of the report?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his welcome to the proposals and for suggesting that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham would welcome them equally strongly. I pay tribute to the Church for the part that it has played in developing these proposals and earlier proposals in relation to devolution, such as devolution in Scotland—the Church played a considerable part in that regard.
	We are completely serious about the commitment to having a true partnership with the voluntary sector and faith communities. In the weeks and months to come, we need to work out precisely how that is to be done. That means proper, real consultation with faith communities, among others, on how that should be done as we develop the proposals.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that people in Yorkshire and Humber welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their desire to play a major part in developing and running their own region? Does he recognise that they will judge the proposals by the extent to which power is devolved from the centre to the regions? Will he elaborate on the powers relating to health, education and transport? I note that the power to allocate funding in those areas appears not to be in the Government's mind.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the proposals will be welcomed not only in Yorkshire and Humber but also in other regions throughout the country as a genuine opportunity to devolve power down from Westminster and Whitehall to the regions, where, rightly, many, many issues should be decided.
	So far as concerns transport, health and education, the proposals do not envisage the distribution of a substantial amount of funds to those three areas. But they do involve the elected regional assemblies playing a significant part in the development of strategies in those areas. However, in areas such as housing, it is envisaged that the elected regional assembly will have funds at its disposal.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a deep sense of cynicism about public life and politics at all levels in this country? Is he also aware that, unless the proposals that he is bringing forward are widely acclaimed and successfully effected, they will add to that sense of disillusion, to our political danger?
	In that context, can he tell us a little more about what he means by the term "social identity"? Perhaps I may tell him that there is no social identity between Shropshire, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry. There is, in fact, a great danger throughout England that the rural areas will feel increasingly neglected by the processes of the Government. That anxiety will be intensified if we find that the rural areas are simply being attached to major urban areas, which are at the core of the new regional arrangements. As I am certain that it is not the intention of the Government to add to social discontent but rather to ameliorate it, can he assure me that he will take that into account?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that there is cynicism in relation to politics in some parts of the country. Part of that cynicism comes from a lack of connection or a remoteness between the governed and those who govern. In those circumstances, we believe that giving regions the option—I make it absolutely clear that it is an option—of regional government is a sensible way to increase the connection by seeking, where a region wants it, to decentralise power from Whitehall and Westminster. It will happen only where a region wants it and only where the region is aware, before the decision is made in a referendum, what the effect will be on the local government arrangements. We consider that to be a sensible and fair approach. We also believe that it is a way in which to increase, rather than decrease, people's faith in politics.
	The noble Lord asked me to take into account what he said. Of course, every contribution will be taken into account.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, if the move to regional government is to be made on a voluntary basis, as appears to be the case from the noble and learned Lord's last remarks, and if it is not intended to guarantee the destruction of the counties, as appears to be the case from his exchange with the noble Baroness opposite, does it not follow that, at the end of these changes, there will be no uniform pattern of local government in this country? There will simply be a patchwork of one form of government in one part of the country and another form in another part. Will that not be extremely confusing both for central Government and for the nation as a whole?
	Does the Minister agree that this calls to mind the image of a celebrated drawing by the artist, Edward Lear? He produced a beautiful drawing of an imaginary plant with people in odd postures hanging from it. Its title was "Manypeeplia Upsidownia". Is that not the direction in which we are heading?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be right to say that at present the nature of local government is a rather complicated patchwork with unitary and two-tier arrangements. Noble Lords may remember the previous government's response to the Banham review. That government abolished six metropolitan county areas.
	I am finding it difficult to make myself heard due to the remarks being made from a sedentary position by a former Secretary of State for the Environment, whose responsibilities included local government.
	There is a patchwork at present. We also recognise that different arrangements will apply in different parts of the country. We see that in relation to parts of the United Kingdom where devolution has already occurred. We also envisage the possibility that different arrangements will apply throughout England. We fully recognise the possibility that some areas will want a regional assembly and some will not. However, we believe that that is the right way to approach the issue; namely, if regions, fully knowing what the arrangements will be at both regional and local government level, vote for regional government, then they should have it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that the Liberal Democrat Benches should be allowed to put forward a question first, followed by these Benches. There will be time for questions from all three Benches.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's recognition that the imposition of uniformity in a heterogeneous country such as England would be unwelcome. However, is he not at some risk of imposing a uniformity in respect of local government which is not apt to sustain regional government and certainly not to make it as popular as I have no doubt he and other members of the Government believe it should be? Is there not a case for recognising that, although unitary government should be the norm, in certain parts of the country good cases may be made for a retention of the status quo or some modification in the light of regional government?
	Secondly, again for the avoidance of the imposition of an unwanted framework on the country, can the Minister set out the Government's thinking on the future modification of boundaries to take account of any criticisms that there may be of existing regional boundaries? Although they may make sense as a starting point for this exercise, they would not necessarily commend themselves throughout the whole country as a basis for this reform.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that that is implicit in what I said. However, perhaps I may now make it explicit. Where a particular region does not have, or does not move towards, a referendum, then there is no proposal to change the existing local government arrangements. That means that they will continue to differ in different parts of the country. However, where there is to be a referendum and where people vote "yes" in that referendum, the White Paper says as a matter of principle that there should be only unitary local government. If one adds an additional tier, there would be too many tiers. That does not necessarily mean that one abolishes the role of counties. It is for the independent Boundary Committee to express its view before a particular region embarks upon a referendum.
	So far as concerns the question whether there are any proposals to change the existing regional boundaries within England, the answer is: not that I am aware of. However, I shall need to confirm that.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has not yet spoken, so let us hear him first.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. When the Minister said that if devolution was good enough for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, why was it not good enough for England, was he not confusing the issues? Devolution for Scotland restored the nationhood to the Scots, whereas devolution in England appears to be taking it away. I should like him to address that point.
	My second point is that people in the North East and the North West who are concerned and are perhaps in favour of regionalisation are so in favour because of the Barnett formula. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the Barnett formula would not be altered. In that case, the North East and, indeed, other regions in England would suffer the same deficit as they are suffering now. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point again.
	Finally, are these proposals in any way geared to, and associated with, the proposal of the European Union Committee of the Regions and the Commission to have a Europe of regions? The Minister did not answer that question, which I believe was asked in the first instance by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the first question was: is this not different from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because it is giving back to them whereas it is taking away from the regions? That is not the right question. The right question is: what promotes good governance? Secondly, has this anything to do with the proposal made by the European Union Committee of the Regions? The answer is no; it has not. The third question was: what about the Barnett formula? I made clear that there are no plans to change that.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I suggested that it was this side first. If we are brief, we should be able to hear both the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and the noble Lord, Lord King. It would be good to hear both.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, although some of us came reluctantly to the concept of variable geometry, it is inevitable? The difference between these carefully thought out proposals and what was happening under the previous government was that, rather like Oliver Cromwell going round with his commissioners, the Banham committee was deciding what would happen in the counties. That happened in several counties in England. There will now be a democratic mandate and this will not happen without a democratic mandate in any part of England.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thoroughly endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea. Underlying the proposals in relation both to any reform of local government in a region where there is to be a referendum, and for there to be an elected regional assembly, there must be the consent of the people through a referendum. We believe that that is the right approach.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with regret, we are out of time. I very much regret that. That clearly signals that we need an early debate on the matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham suggested. Perhaps we could have a word subsequently with the noble Lord, Lord King, to ensure that we are aware of his question.

Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The Deputy Chariman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
	Clause 18 [Governing Bodies]:

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Before calling Amendment No. 93, I must inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 94 to 96.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 11, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
	"(a) persons elected or appointed as parent governors,
	(b) persons elected or appointed as staff governors,"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall begin by explaining the changes which lie before the Committee today in terms of governance. The past 20 years have seen progressive delegation of funding and responsibilities from local education authorities to individual schools. Schools are now largely self-managing, responsible for their own budgets and accountable for all aspects of their performance.
	The public accountability of governing bodies is an essential feature of current arrangements in which schools, rather than education authorities, are the key unit of delivery. That has brought about a dramatic increase in the weight and range of governing body responsibilities. Concerns about how governing bodies are made up and the role they have played has been debated at length.
	That led to a public consultation in November 2000 and to the Way Forward Group, on which all the main national governing body organisations and the churches were represented. It was established in April 2001 and led to the consultation paper, The Way Forward. I shall go into more detail about those arrangements, but I now turn to the amendments.
	Amendment No. 93 serves three purposes, which I shall take in turn. First, the proposed changed wording of subsection (2)(a) will allow us to address parent governor recruitment and representation issues. Under current legislation, if it proves impossible to find a parent of a registered pupil at the school, governing bodies are allowed to appoint a parent of any child of compulsory school age. As currently drafted, that option would no longer be available to governing bodies. The amendment therefore allows us to maintain the status quo in that respect.
	Secondly, Amendment No. 93 proposes a change to Clause 18(2)(b). Subsection (2) sets out the categories of governor that a governing body must consist of. The amendment prescribes that:
	"persons elected or appointed as staff governors"
	must be on the governing body. The advantage of the proposed change is that the phrase,
	"employed to work at the school"
	is not used here. That phrase could be interpreted restrictively to mean only staff employed under contracts of employment, which would be unhelpful and contrary to our intentions. Staff who work at a school under a contract for services, for example, catering staff, are currently able to serve as staff governors and we want to put beyond doubt that such staff will continue to be eligible to serve as a school governor. It is important to have clear definitions in the Bill, and that is what the amendment aims to achieve.
	Thirdly, the proposed changes to paragraphs (a) and (b) create consistency in the definitions used in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this subsection, and thus give this provision in the Bill greater clarity and transparency.
	I should like also to take this opportunity to alert the Committee to a further amendment, which will be needed and which I shall table on Report. There is a drafting error in Clause 18(2)(d), which relates to community governors, formerly known as co-opted governors. As drafted, it would mean that every school must have a community governor. Voluntary aided schools have never had such governors and we did not propose any change to that in the consultation. I apologise to the Committee. I shall table an amendment to provide that Clause 18(2)(d) does not apply in the case of voluntary aided schools. I hope that the Committee will agree that Amendment No. 93 will benefit governing bodies, and I trust that noble Lords will accept it.
	I turn to Amendment No. 106. Paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 relates to the powers of governing bodies to borrow money and grant security. The wording of this paragraph is intended to replicate the current provision in Schedule 10 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which currently states:
	"The power to borrow sums and grant security mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) may only be exercised with the written consent—
	(a) of the Secretary of State, or
	(b) if an order under sub-paragraph (4) so provides, of the local education authority".
	It was always intended to carry forward the provision that governing bodies would have to seek consent from either the Secretary of State—or in Wales the Welsh Assembly—or from their LEA where an order required that. However, as currently drafted, governing bodies would have to seek consent from the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly as well as from their LEA, where an order requires that under subparagraph (5).
	The amendment is needed to make approval by the Secretary of State or Welsh Assembly and approval by the LEA alternative options as we intended, and as is currently provided for in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I have a number of concerns about the amendments. First, I am concerned that if Amendments No. 93 and 106 are accepted—we know that the noble Baroness will ask that they are—there will be no debate today on the inclusion of teachers in the governing bodies. I think that that is monstrous. For that reason I want it to be recorded that, by their amendments, the Government have made it impossible for us to discuss what the nature of staffing members will be.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the Committee. Until the Deputy Chairman said that, that was not my intention. My intention was, indeed, to debate the group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. I am completely in the hands of the Deputy Chairman. That was not my understanding of what would happen if we agreed to the amendments. Had I known that, I would not have asked for them to be debated in this order.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness would not have had any choice about debating the amendments in this order because they come in this part of the Bill. I do not know how many officials are helping the noble Baroness on this matter. It is not the Deputy Chairman who should have enlightened her as she stands up in the Chamber; her own officials should have enlightened her. I believe that they are remiss. This will inhibit debate on the composition of governing bodies as regards the nature of staffing members, which is monstrous.
	Even with the letter received from the noble Baroness and the explanation we have had today, I find it difficult to understand the technical difference between persons who at the time of their election are parents of registered pupils at the school or persons elected or appointed as parent governors. One way or another they will be parents. They usually are parents of registered pupils at the school. If they are not, there is always a fallback position as with other statutes. There is no reference in Clause 18, and certainly no reference as far as concerns the two amendments, to that applying specifically to voluntary aided schools. The noble Baroness referred to an amendment which will be tabled on another day. However, we are talking about the words of the amendment today. I find that particularly disturbing.
	I refer to a letter received from the noble Baroness. I suspect that anyone else with any involvement in the Bill has also received the same letter. The part which refers to Clause 18 states:
	"The amendments to Clause 18",
	that is, Amendments No. 93 and 106,
	"concern the definition of parent and staff governors".
	Simply to say,
	"persons elected or appointed as parent governors"
	does not make it any clearer. So the idea that this is the better definition of parents and staff governors is wrong. It does not do that. It continues,
	"Current regulations state that parent governors should be drawn from the parents of children at the school. When that is not possible,"—
	as I hinted earlier, there is a fallback position—
	"current regulations allow the governing body to appoint a parent of a registered pupil or where that is not possible a parent of a compulsory school age child".
	It then states:
	"The latter route is not available to Voluntary Aided schools".
	What tells us that it is available to voluntary aided schools in the amendment? I certainly do not see that in the amendment. It continues:
	"Partners"—
	I assume that the partners are Church communities—
	"have raised this issue and, on reflection,"—
	that is to say, the Government have reflected—
	"we think it sensible to provide that VA schools also have this option".
	I have no objection to that. In fact, I wholeheartedly support voluntary aided schools enjoying that if that is what they want. I also hope—although I cannot presume because it is not in my field—that voluntary aided schools would want the staff to be represented by teachers in the school. Again, we shall not be free to have that debate today. That is unfortunate.
	The Government then say that they have taken the opportunity to clarify the definition. I do not believe that they have done that either for parents or staff. It continues,
	"(the definition of staff governor having also been the subject of representations to the Department), following advice from Parliamentary Counsel that this would provide greater consistency with the rest of that clause".
	I think that they have failed on all counts in these amendments. I just lament the fact that we shall not be able to discuss our amendments about the nature of the staffing members, including teachers.

Lord Peston: I am slightly appalled and I am also a little taken aback because if Amendment No. 93 were grouped with the remainder, we could debate them all together. I do not understand why we just do not group the amendments together. That would solve the problem. It would not distress either the Minister, the Official Opposition or me—me counting a great deal in this regard.
	I have one or two points to make. But perhaps I may first inquire whether we can group the amendments so that we do not ruin our whole afternoon's proceedings.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister answers that, perhaps I may make another suggestion. If she does not move Amendments Nos. 93 and 106 today they will both be left on the table. It would leave us free to discuss all the other amendments in their normal groupings.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston. I should prefer to take these amendments with the bigger group and have the kind of discussion which the Committee would welcome on the whole area.

Lord Peston: If that is agreeable to Members of the Committee, perhaps I may proceed as if we were in the group. However, I want to talk about Amendment No. 93 for the moment.
	My difficulty, to which I hope my noble friend will reply, is that the amendment does not do what I thought it would. In particular, it does not make sure that the parent governors are parents of children at the school, or that the staff governors—and we shall define the staff in more detail later—should be staff at the school because it says,
	"elected or appointed as".
	My understanding of the English language is that anyone could be "elected or appointed as" and then told, "Well, you are the staff governor". It does not say that,
	"a member of staff should be elected or appointed as",
	and it does not say that
	"a parent in the school should be elected or appointed as".
	I know that the parliamentary draftsmen are fantastic people. We may well be told in due course—as I have been when dealing with many other Bills—that the English language seems to tell us something completely different, but it means what I have just said that it should mean. Subject to that, we need some explanation that the amendment does the trick. Certainly, in terms of ordinary parlance, it does not do the trick. It does not remotely tell us that the staff governors will be staff and that the parent governors will be parents.
	Amendment No. 93 is not in the large group, but none the less I think that it would be helpful to debate it as an amendment in the group. I shall certainly, as will other Members of the Committee, be talking about other amendments in the group in due course.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 94 and 97 which I now understand are in the group. The amendments seek to ensure the representation of both teacher and staff governors. As the Minister wants to amend the clause, the Bill would only require,
	"persons elected or appointed as staff governors".
	It is not stated on the face of the Bill that we have both a teacher and a member of the support staff as staff governors. The Explanatory Notes state in paragraph 73:
	"The regulations will also establish a single staff governor category . . . and . . . within that category one place should be reserved for a teacher".
	From these Benches, we believe that teacher governors are very important to the deliberations of governing bodies. A well-informed governing body, which listens to the professional views of those responsible for its pupils, is less likely to make mistakes on decisions relating to the curriculum and the morale of the school.
	The status quo allows for representation of both teacher and support staff on the governing body. Indeed, it is not long since support staff gained the right to sit on governing bodies. In my personal experience, they make a very important contribution. They have a completely different perspective from that of teachers. Therefore, I believe that it is important to ensure that both those categories of people employed at the school are represented on the governing body.
	All members of a school community should be represented on the governing body and be able to contribute to the improvement of their school. However, simply replacing one category of governor with another is not the way to ensure an inclusive and representative body. So, whatever the Government's reasons for the amendments, I believe that it is essential that when changes—in particular, to the curriculum—are proposed the role of both teaching and non-teaching staff is protected.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. However, before I do, I would seek to advise the Minister—but who am I to do that?—that I do not intend to press these amendments today. There is a real cause for concern about clarity. I did not want to get into the debate about teachers and other members of the staff. It is not so much to do with the English language, but it is to do with common expectation. People expect governors from the staff of the school to include, at least, the teachers, who are absolutely vital to the school and the curriculum and so on. There is also the worthwhile part played by other members of the staff. If there is any doubt about that, we should pause.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to table an amendment in the area of community governors in voluntary aided schools. My amendments seek to preserve in primary legislation, so far as concerns governance, the position of the churches and other voluntary bodies in relation to the schools that they have founded.
	I appreciate that the Government have made clear that they want the Bill to concern principle rather than detail, which will follow in regulations. Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 deal with a point of principle. We regard a majority of two foundation governors as a requirement if the religious character—the special character—of the school and its distinctiveness are to be retained. That was set out in the definition of a foundation governor in Section 78(2) of the 1996 Act.
	Similarly, in the case of a voluntary controlled school, we seek to ensure that there are at least two foundation governors or such number as constitute a quarter of the governing body.
	That in no way undermines what the Government seek to do. It seeks to do no more than continue the principle enshrined in the 1944 and subsequent Education Acts. It also fulfils the commitment given in November 2000 by the then DfEE in its consultation on school governing bodies in paragraph 21. That stated that the new model—that is the size of existing voluntary aided governing bodies—would protect the existing position whereby foundation governors hold a majority of two or three places. It is for that reason that I bring forth these modest amendments which we hope will be seen as a principle and therefore should be on the face of the Bill.

Baroness David: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 98, tabled by my noble friend Lord Peston and I. As my noble friend said when moving his first amendment to the Bill, we have no intention of dividing the Committee.
	Amendment No. 96 refers to teachers and support staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the importance of having support staff on the governing body. The status quo allows for representation of both teachers and support staff. All members of a school community should be represented on the governing body and able to contribute to the improvement of their school. However, simply replacing one category of governor by another is not the way to ensure an inclusive and representative body. To replace a specific category of teacher governor with a generic staff governor would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the school.
	There seems to be little rationale to change the constitution of governing bodies as they have only recently—in 2000—been reconstituted. In their consultation document, The Way Forward: A Modernised Framework for School Governance, the Government propose that there should be a single stakeholder group referred to as staff governors. The Explanatory Notes state:
	"The regulations will also establish a single staff governor category to replace separate teacher and non-teacher staff categories and will also establish that within that category one place should be reserved for a teacher".
	I cannot agree with that.
	The National Association of Governors and Managers argues that no stakeholder group should form a majority on the governing body. The National Union of Teachers agrees with that principle and therefore opposes the proposal to form a single governor stakeholder group to represent staff employed at the school. Teachers and other staff groups reflect different perspectives and there should be adequate representation of both of them. The staff and groups of staff are now so many: we have the kitchen staff, dinner ladies, cleaning ladies, lollipop men and women and people who deal with sports grounds. They are innumerable but they should be represented and could make a great contribution to the governing body. I hope that my amendments and those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, are accepted.
	I turn to the question of pupil governors, which is perhaps more controversial. I am clear that we should have pupil governors. I have worked with them, although it is true that that was in a sixth-form college. We had two pupil governors, who were a help to each other—in a big school, that is suitable. Attitudes have changed and the climate is much more friendly to young people in school having a greater voice.
	Let us consider the background. In the White Paper, Schools: Achieving Success, the Government state that they
	"will encourage students' active participation in the decisions that affect them, about their learning and more widely".
	The whole of Chapter 3 of the new SEN code of practice, which has statutory status, is devoted to pupil participation. It states:
	"Pupil participation should be the goal for all children and opportunities for such participation should expand as pupils develop".
	On average, children spend 12 years in an environment where they have no legal right to be consulted or involved in decisions that affect them—in their own education, the running of their schools or the formation of wider educational policy and practice. A place on the governing body would put that right, increase their experience and make them a little more knowledgeable in the ways of the world. It is widely recognised that listening to and involving children and young people in schools plays a key role in preventing and combating disaffection.
	With the introduction of the citizenship and personal, social and health education curricula from September 2002 and the requirement at key stages 3 and 4 to teach children about the,
	"legal and human rights and responsibilities underpinning society",
	it is inconceivable to deny them the right to participate in school life. Furthermore, participation of pupils in a democratic process—through debate, listening to the opinions of others and taking responsibility for decisions and the resulting consequences—would make a vital contribution to the curriculum, and, indeed to the running of the school, through practical experience. That was recognised by the Advisory Group on Citizenship in 1998.
	So what do we know about the Government's intention? In recent months they have suggested that they are prepared to issue non-statutory guidance on pupil participation but have reservations about placing statutory requirements on governing bodies and teachers. The Government should be bolder. They have taken some steps towards pupil representation. They should take that extra step. Let us at least have a pilot scheme for pupil governors, which I hope could be made universal.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 94 and 97, which concern teacher governors and support staff governors. It is important that both groups are represented on the governing board. It is extraordinary that having only just arrived at that position with the new regulations in 2000, we are now moving away from it. In particular, I should like to endorse the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there is an increasing number of support staff in schools. There is an increasing number of teaching assistants and we want to expand that number. It is absolutely right and proper that they are represented, but if they are, it is extraordinary to think that teachers should not be represented.
	I do not understand why, having finally conceded in the last round that support staff should be represented, the Government are now going back on that—other than because of pressure in the background from head teachers, who have been worried about the number of people represented from schools. I do not understand why the government are caving in to that pressure. Both groups are stakeholders in the schools and it is vital that they are both separately represented.

Baroness Blatch: I assume that we are discussing Amendments Nos. 93 to 101 and 106. I shall speak to Amendment Nos. 95 and 101. Amendment No. 95 follows the theme of our debate. Reference to teachers is conspicuous by its absence. We can only assume that somewhere in the bowels of the department a view has been taken—supported by Ministers—that it should not prescribe that teachers specifically, necessarily and in their own right should form part of the governing body. We know that it is not just possible but probable that members of staff will include a teacher, but teachers are not specifically mentioned, so the Minister must tell us why the department has chosen not to do so.
	If the department believes that the provision should be widened from teachers to include other members of staff, is it entirely happy to accept that any member of staff representing other interests in the school could be chosen, or is it just assuming that one or more would be teachers but wants other sections of the staff to be represented? I do not know; I pose it as a question. It is important that the question is asked specifically.
	I have tabled Amendment No. 101 to tease out from the Government the meaning of "other persons". The words,
	"such other persons as may be prescribed".
	are a catch-all phrase. The Government may think of someone later and are not sure who that may be. I prefer powers of co-option to a governing body. We should specify the categories of people who would belong to it. I have been carefully through the categories. I find it difficult to imagine anyone outside those categories. The catch-all category is paragraph (d) which refers to,
	"persons appointed as community governors".
	They could be anyone from within the community: the business, commercial, voluntary or charitable sector. That is the catch-all part of the clause. It is difficult, therefore, to envisage why we have the words,
	"such other persons as may be prescribed".
	I intend to take the provision out of the Bill in order to give the Government the opportunity to state on this part of the clause the composition with regard to categories of people.
	I assume from the Bill that the regulations will come forward under the negative resolution procedure. I shall ask the Minister to consider their coming forward under the affirmative resolution procedure. With regard to the regulations governing their operation, I regard composition as more important. Once the composition is established, one should leave the governors to get on with the job of governing the school. Therefore the affirmative resolution procedure seems appropriate.
	The debate is somewhat unsatisfactory. We are talking about a disparate aspect. However, there is a common theme running through some of the amendments contained in the second group: the importance of teachers as a specific category. Not only on the face of the Bill but in government amendments to the Bill teachers are conspicuous by their absence.
	I return to my original point about Amendments Nos. 93 and 106. I am not sure that the provisions are any clearer than they were in their original form.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I refer to Clause 18(2)(d) with reference to,
	"the term of office of governors".
	I understand that a parent can stay on as a governor, even though the child is no longer at the school, but only for a certain period. I believe that a teacher governor has to relinquish that post once he or she leaves the school. Perhaps I may have clarification on that.

Lord Peston: That is an important question which is worth clarifying. Perhaps I may add a few words to my noble friend's remarks on pupils in schools. My daughter was among the first, if not the very first, pupil to be a governor of a school in Haringey. We were very proud and asked, "What was it like?". She said, "It's a complete waste of time". We inquired why. She said, "The teachers are hopeless"—not surprisingly because that was her view of teachers generally. But in particular the governors were not merely hopeless but ignorant and had no idea about what went on in the school. That shattered me at the time, but it leads me to two views. First, being a governor undoubtedly involves having a great deal to do with the school. It is not something that one puts on a CV and assumes that that is it. Nowadays it involves a great deal of commitment. It requires one to have people who really know about the school.
	The group which, overwhelmingly, knows most about the school is the pupils. The idea that such a group should be optional seems absurd. I have never considered that one needed much in the way of formal teacher assessment. One just asks the children who teaches well and who does not, who bunks off and who does not. One needs no investigations. Therefore, I am genuinely surprised that at best pupils are an optional category when it should be compulsory. Equally, although we make the usual remarks in this Chamber about local democracy, the need of the community, and so on—I stand second to none in my support of those views—the fact is that we do not require the kind of people I have met on other bodies who talk a great deal at the relevant governing or other meeting and consider that as their contribution. Anything involving work or involvement is beyond them. Under another heading, we shall come to multiple governors and so on, which makes the matter even worse.
	I strongly press my noble friend to face the reality of the school and the importance of governors, realising how important are those we have mentioned, the teaching and non-teaching staff and the pupils. I reiterate my noble friend's question. I am concerned to be assured that "parent governors" means parents of children at the school and that the staff are people on the staff rather than those who may have had some connection at some time.
	We shall return to other topics in which we are interested. Amendment No. 106 seems to have nothing to do with what we are talking about. I assume that until we ran into our earlier troubles it was for the convenience of the Minister to group the two amendments together although that made difficulties unknown to any of us. I do not understand Amendment No. 106 and apologise, therefore, to my noble friend. I am sure that it is completely right and deserves all our support.

Lord Dearing: We are having a relaxed discussion and I presume, therefore, to join in, confessing my lack of detailed knowledge. First, perhaps I may say yes to pupil governors. However, before returning to the issue on Report, or whenever, on reflection perhaps we may satisfy ourselves that there are no legal impediments to having a minor as a governor, accepting all the legal responsibilities that go with being a governor. That may need to be thought through.
	Secondly, one tends to have in one's mind a typical, fairly large, school. But there are a vast number of tiny primary schools in rural areas. When we think of having perhaps a teacher governor and a non-teacher staff governor, one may have the whole staff of the school on the governing body. We need to think through that angle too.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, reminds me of a point relating to another clause. Where a school forms a company, we are putting on the governors a special and different responsibility. When considering the composition of governing bodies, we need to think of them as being members of companies, coming under the full panoply of company law.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that I, with other noble Lords, pay tribute to the work that governors do. Until last year, I was a chair of governors—perhaps a slightly easier job than I have today. Nonetheless, I thoroughly enjoyed that job and know from that experience over seven years, as do others, how much work governors do on behalf of us all in supporting schools and our children.
	I view this debate against that backdrop. We seek to address the point reflected on by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, about how different schools may be and creating flexibility. I know that noble Lords will regard it in that spirit. These debates are important. The Government's objective is to ensure that we get the matter right.
	In reply to my noble friend Lord Peston, the current legislation is framed so that the elected parent governor is a parent with a child at the school. Sometimes such a parent cannot be found so we consider that other categories of people should be included, such as parents of school-aged children. That is quite rare—I have never come across it—but I gather that it happens. Another category is carers of children who may not necessarily be parents.
	We want to re-enact the current position so that there is a broader meaning in law. We are doing precisely that in what, clearly, I have not set out well. I hope that clarifies the position. I apologise that we are not where I had hoped we would be, but I shall address the individual amendments. My noble friend Lady Massey is right to say that parent governors serve out their term of office, which is up to four years, and that teacher governors—staff governors—resign on leaving the school.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness quite rightly describes the situation as it is at the moment, and the letter states:
	"When that is not possible, current regulations allow the governing body to appoint a parent of a registered pupil or where that is not possible a parent of a compulsory school age child".
	That is the current situation. I do not understand what the amendment does to widen that further. In what way does it widen it further?
	Secondly, the letter goes on to say,
	"The latter route"—
	appointing a parent of a school-aged child—
	"is not available to Voluntary Aided schools".
	In these amendments, what makes it available to voluntary aided schools?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The purpose is to put on the face of the Bill the wider definition of "parent" so that in regulation the current position can continue. We approach the matter in that way to ensure that we can continue as we want. We also want to address in regulation the same issue in regard to voluntary aided schools. Up to now they have not had that freedom. By putting that wider definition on the face of the Bill, within regulations we can say that that would be available for all schools.
	Of course, wherever possible it is important to recruit parent governors from the parents of the children who attend the school. I believe that the Committee will agree that such a provision should include carers. We have said, in terms of the stakeholder model, that if, at the end of the day, that proves impossible—we know that in some special schools it has proved quite difficult—to have someone who is a parent, and who approaches issues from a parental point of view, would be of use.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Is the noble Baroness aware that Amendment No. 93, which substitutes,
	"persons elected or appointed as parent governors",
	for what is currently in the Bill, excludes direct reference to
	"parents of registered pupils at the school"?
	That implies that the Government have changed the balance of the appointment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On the face of the Bill we have "parents of registered pupils". That excludes any other category of parent. We are seeking to achieve the opposite of what the noble Lord suggests. We are widening the definition of "parent" on the face of the Bill so that in regulation we can stipulate that schools should look initially to parents within the school, but if that is not possible—I have described the situation of some special schools—they can look more broadly. That should be allowed to happen for all categories of schools, and it is a power that voluntary aided schools have wanted.
	We are not trying to take anything away from parents of children attending the school. Of course, wherever possible they should be the parents involved, but if we were unable to achieve that we feel, as we have for some time, that we should still have a parental viewpoint or a carer's viewpoint. I hope that makes the position clear.

Baroness Blatch: I may have a mental blockage about this. That is the current position so why do we need an amendment? Which statute prevents voluntary aided schools from enjoying that extension? What is there in the extension under the proposed amendment of the noble Baroness that includes voluntary aided schools? They are not named in the amendment at all.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure that the noble Baroness does not have a mental blockage. The way in which the Bill has been framed takes away from the current position. That is why we need to amend it. As of today, the position is that if a school is unable to find a parent from within its ranks who is willing to serve, it can look more widely. The way in which we have framed the Bill removes that provision. My amendment puts it back. Voluntary aided schools have not had that opportunity. By widening the position on the face of the Bill we can, by regulation, allow the voluntary aided schools to have that right.

Lord Peston: Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend that I understand what she is doing. Therefore, I believe she should soldier on as she has taught at least one person, out of all those present, something.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Thank you. If I can convince one other person of the point, that proves that I have understood it. I turn to the amendments that are now in this group, and speak, first, to Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 97.
	We have approached this matter through a consultation group called The Way Forward. Represented on that group were all the major stakeholders, including the National Association of Governors and Managers, the National Governors' Council and various other representatives of whom Members of the Committee will be aware. I was fortunate enough to chair the final meeting, having just been appointed. The purpose of the group was to consider some of the issues that governing bodies raised with it. Following those discussions I met with groups of governors around the country in order to test our proposals.
	On the single staff stakeholder group, I fully understand why concerns have been raised. We had 4,385 replies to the consultation. The proposal was supported by 77 per cent and, to some extent, the support from head teachers and other staff was 78 per cent.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, non-teaching staff are very much part of the school team. The amendments before us would alter the balance struck within The Way Forward group. I offer the noble Baroness reassurance by saying that we shall safeguard teacher representation on the governing bodies by making provisions in regulations that prescribe that at least one place on the single staff stakeholder group should be taken by a teacher. If no teacher stands for election, we want to ensure that the position is filled rather than being left unfilled. So a position is held for a teacher within that group on the understanding that if no teacher comes forward, the school should be able to fill the place, if it felt that was appropriate. We agree with those who have argued—a large percentage of those directly affected—for flexibility.
	I turn to Amendment No. 96 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston. The Way Forward group recommended that at least one member of the staff group should be a teacher. We believe that the level of support indicates that that is the right approach. Non-teaching staff make an important contribution. I hope that we shall be able to see that the maximum flexibility being created within the group enables schools to develop the model that suits them. We want to create a flexible model wherever possible to enable schools to develop the size, the type and the style, within the Way Forward group's proposition of the stakeholder model, that has been carefully worked out with them.
	Perhaps I may turn to the subject of pupils and Amendment No. 98. I agree with everything that has been said about pupils being at the heart of education. It is important to consider how to involve them. However, over the years, it has become very clear to us that governing bodies have been given increasingly strategic—and, I would say, demanding—responsibilities: they set out the strategic direction of schools; they monitor and evaluate the performance to provide support and challenge the role of the "critical friend"; and secure accountability. So they have a tremendously demanding role to play.
	In the light of what has been said about school companies by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I believe it would be helpful if I were to say a little about the legal position of governing bodies, because of the implications involved. When we debated school companies, we discussed at great length the issue of the body corporate. However, as those deliberations made clear, the governing body does have a distinct legal identity, which is separate from that of the individual governors who exercise their powers through collective decision making.
	Thus a governing body in its own name can enter into contracts, and, depending on the category of school, hire and manage staff, acquire and manage the premises occupied by the school, open a bank account, and hold and manage the school budget. Provided that the governing body acts responsibly and in good faith, individual governors are protected from any personal liability for debts or obligations incurred by the governing body.
	A body corporate can sign documents upon which third parties are entitled to rely as evidence of legal commitment. Therefore, it is important that those who deal with a body corporate are confident that it will act in a responsible manner. That depends to a large extent on the quality of the individual people who make the corporate decisions. To protect third parties, legislation that regulates public bodies, charities and companies—all of which are "bodies corporate"—is concerned with who may and who may not participate in corporate decision making through membership of the controlling body.
	A lack of legal capacity in corporate decision making is a ground for disqualifying potential members from being members of bodies corporate. That is generally accepted to cover persons under the age of majority; that is to say, 18 years of age. For pupils under 18 to be eligible for governorship would, at best, be inadvisable. However, I believe that pupils' voices should be heard. They can, of course, make a valuable contribution to decision making. Pupils can already attend governing body meetings and committees at the invitation of the governing body. We know that a number of schools do so on a regular basis.
	I want to ensure that there are clear mechanisms for taking pupils' views into account. I therefore intend to provide in regulations for governing bodies to be able to appoint pupils to a committee or committees as associate members. The regulations will, of course, be subject to public consultation—

Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but is she saying that those pupils who previously served as school governors were behaving illegally? We are not inventing school governors here. As far as I know, schools have had pupil governors for some time. After all these years, I am a little taken aback to discover that there was a legal side to the matter. I should never have let a child of mine become remotely involved if I thought that there was any legal commitment, because I may well have ended up with a similar problem. This is absolutely news to me. I am not saying that it is incorrect, but perhaps my noble friend could clarify the situation.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Those young people who serve as school governors are unable to vote; and, therefore, are not members of the governing body because they have no voting rights.
	I am trying to offer an appropriate category for young people, so that we can bring them into the process in a positive way. I strongly emphasise the fact that I want governors to be recognised for the valuable contribution that they make, and for the responsibilities that they carry. It is my view that associate membership is a good way of involving that participation. If people become governors, they should recognise that they are taking on a serious responsibility—I know that governors do—which has some effect in law. I make that distinction in the hope that it will address the issue raised by my noble friend. This amendment would make it compulsory to have pupil governors. I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend that that would not be the right way forward, and that he will agree not to press his amendment.
	Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 99, tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate. The guiding principle for foundation and voluntary controlled schools was that up to and including one-quarter of the places will be reserved for foundation or partnership governors. In our policy statement, which has been made available to noble Lords, we set out our commitment to implement the proposals of the Way Forward Group in this respect. I am pleased to have the opportunity to repeat that commitment here in Committee. We shall be implementing the proposals recommended by the Way Forward Group, and supported through consultation.
	The provisions of Clause 18 ensure that there will be at least one governor place in each of the categories listed. The right reverend Prelate made clear that the Churches are seeking a minimum representation of two, or one-quarter where this is the greater. We have had discussions with Church representatives on this point, and are exploring how we might go some way towards meeting the point of concern. I am pleased, therefore, to offer a commitment to provide in regulations for a minimum of two foundation or partnership governor places at foundation and voluntary controlled schools.
	As our proposals received such widespread support in consultation, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that I am keen to ensure that we do not depart significantly from the principles that I previously outlined. I hope that my offer of providing for a minimum representation of two foundation or partnership governor places at foundation schools will be sufficient to meet the primary concern of the right reverend Prelate.
	I should also like to draw attention to an additional safeguard for the Churches that applies to voluntary controlled and voluntary aided schools, as well as to foundation schools with foundation governors. At the local level, the LEA will be unable to make an instrument of government detailing governing body membership for any governing body having foundation governors, unless the foundation governors themselves, the trustees, and any diocesan body, are content. Where the parties cannot agree, the disputed instrument will be referred to the Secretary of State for determination. These are existing provisions, which have worked to resolve disputes. We shall carry them forward into the regulations governing the process for making instruments of government. As for voluntary aided schools, I can confirm that the guiding principle for these schools is that foundation governors outnumber the other governors by two.
	If we were to define one stakeholder group's membership in the primary legislation, I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that we would undoubtedly receive similar requests from all other stakeholder groups. If we distinguish between the various groups, that would imply differences in parity of esteem.
	However, I can confirm that there is no disagreement on the level of foundation governor representation on voluntary aided school governing bodies. The Way Forward Group proposed that foundation governors should outnumber the other governors by two. Responses to the consultation showed that over 90 per cent supported, at least in part, the proposals on representation—there was 88 per cent support from voluntary aided school respondents. I am pleased to have the opportunity to place on the record a specific commitment to provide in regulations for a majority of two for the foundation governors at voluntary aided schools.
	I hope, therefore, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn will appreciate why we are not defining the level of the majority on the face of the Bill, believing, as we do, that that is a matter for regulations. None the less, I listened most carefully to what the right reverend Prelate said. I know that this is an important point for the Churches. I recognise the importance of foundation governors in relation to voluntary aided schools. I trust, therefore, that we can meet the concern of the right reverend Prelate, without changing our general approach in the area.
	I am prepared to bring forward on Report a government amendment that would establish the principle of a majority for the foundation governors for voluntary aided schools. I can confirm that we shall provide in regulations for the foundation to have a majority of two. I hope that this approach, which enshrines the principle in primary legislation, will meet the concern of the right reverend Prelate and that he will not seek to press his amendment.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 101. When discussing Amendment No. 95, I mentioned that the stakeholder model has been consulted on, and has received widespread support. I should like to reiterate our commitment to that model, and to preserving the balance between the different stakeholders: parents, staff, LEA appointed governors, community governors; and, for voluntary and foundation schools, foundation or partnership governors. The Way Forward Group emphasised the importance of maintaining the commitment to the stakeholder model of school governance.
	Clause 18 defines the categories of persons who must be represented on the governing body, and thereby holds true to the principles of safeguarding representation of the key stakeholders. But there is a limited number of other persons whom we want to allow to be included on governing bodies, if governing bodies so choose. These are sponsor governors, and governors nominated by the Education Action Forum, if the school is part of an education action zone. To achieve this we need the provision that is the subject of this amendment; namely, that regulations may provide for governing bodies to consist of,
	"such other persons as may be prescribed",
	as set out in Clause 18(2)(f).
	I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, by saying that we shall provide in regulations for a maximum of two sponsor governors per governing body. We intend to set a maximum of two, because we are committed to the stakeholder model. We want to ensure that the balance between stakeholders is maintained. However, we believe that it is right to extend the definition of sponsor governor beyond the current definition in Schedule 1 to the Education (School Government)(England) Regulations 1999, which applies only to individuals providing substantial financial assistance or benefits in kind, excluding services, to schools. Naturally, such individuals must declare an interest and withdraw from discussions on any issue relevant to that interest.
	We plan to extend the current definition to include other external partners providing advice and support, including the provision of assistance by providing services to the school, as we explained in our recent consultation paper. Those offering support to a school—for example, through partnership working—could make a valuable contribution to the governance of the school, particularly by strengthening governance arrangements if the school is in difficulties. That might include, for example, a successful school, FE college or other body supporting or partnering another school. It is right that there should be scope for the school or body that is providing support to be represented on the governing body. That could be an important way of strengthening weaker governing bodies.
	In the interests of parity, it is important to allow anyone providing a school with such potential benefits through a partnership to have an equal right to be represented on the governing body as those providing financial benefits, if they and the governing body of the recipient school so choose. I hope that, with the reassurances that I have given, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not move the amendment.

Lord Peston: I want to ask my noble friend two questions. She has clarified some things but has left me feeling rather lost on the subject of pupil governors. My understanding of what the Minister said is that no person under the age of 18 can be a pupil governor. That is what she seemed to say. That is news to me, and it would represent a drastic change. That is what puzzles me. I do not need the answer to that question today.
	My other question relates to religious schools. Much as I am opposed to religious schools in all forms, I understand that, if we are to have such bodies, the religious sponsors should have a dominant role. It would make no sense otherwise. Subject to my general attitude to such schools, I was glad to hear my noble friend's reply. However, bells started ringing none the less. Can I have an assurance that, in all other schools, none of the interested parties will have a guaranteed majority or be allowed to consider having such a majority? That frightens the life out of me with regard to some of the new forms of school in which the Government have taken an interest. Can I assume that everybody else will be in a definite minority on governing bodies?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thought that I had addressed the point about pupil governors. Pupil governors as currently designated are students who are part of the governing body but do not vote. They are not full members of the governing body. The amendment would have made them full members. I hope that I have elucidated the reasons why that would not be appropriate and why there is the new category of associate members, which gives them status and a role, without their having to carry inappropriate responsibility as members of a governing body.
	The noble Lord is right about the other schools. The position is exactly as he described it.

Baroness Blatch: One of the difficulties with this group of amendments is that not only does the Minister move the lead amendment, but she winds up the debate on the group. I am not blaming the Minister; it is a quirk of our procedures. However, it is true.
	I am grateful for the detail given by the Minister, and I shall not press Amendment No. 101. On the subject of the responsibilities of governors should their school and/or schools and/or joint working with other companies form companies, the Minister said that, as long as an individual acted responsibly and in good faith, he or she would be protected. That is no different from the position of, for example, trustees of charities.
	I had an experience as a trustee of a charity that is seared into my mind. We had decided collectively to sell a piece of land, but that decision was challenged by a group of local people. The only thing that saved us was that we had taken counsel's opinion, for which we paid, before we took the decision. The case went on for five years and came all the way to the House of Lords. It was only at that stage that we were cleared of a debt of about £5 million that had been hanging over each of us. I hope that the Minister and her officials will be mindful of such cases. We acted in good faith, as was ultimately proven. However, if we had not taken counsel's opinion, even if we had made the same decision and acted in the same good faith, we would have lost our homes and all our wherewithal. That is an important point, if we are to make school governors responsible under company law.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Can the Minister clarify the position in respect of the new academies? As I understand it, there is a majority of foundation governors in foundation schools. Presumably, that would also apply to the new city academies that are to be established.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I am not sure about the right procedures, but I thank the Minister for her answer and her commitment in making instruments for voluntary-aided schools. It is right that we should continue existing provision. I shall read the Minister's reply carefully; I think that it was in line with what I sought. I will not move my amendment.

Lord Dearing: I shall ask the Minister to clarify one point and apologise for not having followed what she said sufficiently closely.
	I am concerned about very small schools with a head teacher, one other teacher and one non-teaching staff member. I am worried that the position of the head teacher would be undermined, if that one teacher and the one non-teaching staff member were on the governing body.
	I am sorry. Shall I say it again? I was asking whether there might be a problem with micro-schools.

A Noble Lord: No.

Lord Dearing: No? I shall shut up then.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the noble Lord for being unable to hear him. I meant no disrespect, and I thank whomever it was who responded to him.
	To the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I say that the position depends on the nature of the academy. We will debate academies later, and I shall set out the model clearly for her then.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Am I right in thinking that foundation schools have a majority of foundation governors?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No—yes. I apologise for that. I shall now give the noble Baroness the correct answer: they are not in a majority. That is where I began my answer.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Walmsley: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 94:
	Page 12, line 1, after "work" insert "as teachers"

Baroness Walmsley: With reference to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 94, can I ask whether she thinks it odd that teacher governors should not be mentioned in the Bill, given the Government's determination to raise the morale of the teaching profession? I also understand that the Way Forward group had no teacher representatives.

Baroness Blatch: When speaking to these two (now composite) groups of amendments, the Minister named all the groups that were in favour. The NAHT, the NAS/UWT and the NUT, which represent a large proportion of teachers, do not support the leaving out of teachers. They support the demarcation and inclusion of teaching and non-teaching staff, but they include them as separate entities on the list. They also are not mentioned.

Lord Elton: The words to which Amendment No. 94 is addressed have been withdrawn by the amendment to which the Committee has already agreed. The amendment has, therefore, been pre-empted, and I should not have allowed it to be moved. In any case, it was in a group that had been spoken to.

[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]

Lord Elton: Amendment No. 95 is also subject to pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 96 to 101 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 12, line 8, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to move Amendment No. 102 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 105, 108 and 109. The amendments address some of the issues that we have already discussed, but they also seek to question some of the central tenets of the new school governing arrangements being proposed in the aftermath of the consultations on The Way Forward which took place last year.
	The question which the Committee has to address is whether we need any new regulations governing the management of maintained schools. As has already been said, the last set of regulations came into force only two years ago. Discussions I have held with a wide range of organisations indicate a broad agreement that those regulations—the current regulations, which were finalised after a long period of trial and error—are about right. That process took a long time, developing gradually through a series of education Acts from the time of the Taylor report, published in the 1970s, onwards in which the role of governors was honed. As a result, many feel that we have now got things about right. Why then is there a need for change?
	It appears that the pressure for change came from two sources. First, from quite a number of head teachers who were rightly concerned at the burdens being shouldered by governors, and, given the responsibilities borne by governors, were also concerned at the difficulty of recruiting people to fill those positions. Secondly, from the Government themselves who, as always, are wedded to the notion of modernisation and change. They believe that all innovation is good and that shaking up established institutions is worthwhile. However, in that process of shaking up, sometimes the Government forget that such continuous change can in fact destabilise institutions.
	Be that as it may, the result of all that was the establishment two years ago of the Way Forward Group to discuss the future of school governance. That group met only four times. It had representatives of head teachers, governors, the Churches and, from local government, those who train governors. However, it did not include any representatives of teachers or parents. I understand that, far from finding the way forward, the group actually rather lost its way and drifted into a fog. Nevertheless, as the Minister has already indicated, the outcome was the publication of a consultation paper, The Way Forward—A Modernised Framework for School Governance.
	As we all know, it is easy to run a consultation when one starts from a certain set of premises and then asks which, from a series of changes that are going to be made, would the consultees prefer. That, essentially, was the way in which the consultation took place. As a result, I believe that it was a somewhat flawed exercise. The outcome was agreement to the proposals put before the Committee today.
	One of the main findings of the Way Forward Group was that there should be much greater flexibility and that schools should be able to vary the rules of governance from one school to another. Do we really need to do that? Amendments Nos. 102 and 109 are technical amendments which change the "may's" to "shall's" in Clauses 18(3) and 20(3). This approach would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to lay down national rules and structures for governing bodies. I agree that it may seem a little odd for noble Lords on these Benches to argue for more centralisation rather than less, although in this case there has been centralisation.
	What is being proposed is to give schools greater discretion on matters such as the size of the governing body, who would be eligible to serve on it, what would constitute a forum, what sub-committees should be set up and so forth, along with addressing the standing orders framework required of governing bodies. From these Benches we would argue that it is more suitable for such matters to be laid down centrally rather than that they should vary from school to school.
	I seek that position for a number of reasons. First, writing the rules is a time-consuming function to which the clerk for the head teacher would have to give a great deal of time and attention. Secondly, it would put too much power into the hands of the head teacher to restrict, for example, the number of staff governors or to marginalise their rules through the rules governing working together. The influence of head teachers on revision of the rules, such as restricting the role of support staff appointments, could also be rather too strong. Thirdly, national rules confer prestige and weight to a governing body. Being a school governor is a responsible position and is acknowledged as such by its national identity and framework—just as the magistracy, too, has a national identity. It is another volunteer body, but through its national framework it acquires a national identity.
	I think that it is unsatisfactory for boards to determine their own size and composition within a set of general principles. For example, there is no requirement for non-teaching staff to be represented, even though we have already debated the fact that that requirement was finally included on the statute book only two years ago. Similarly, a minimum teacher representation of one person regardless of the size of the school is something that we feel is desirable. In larger schools it is important for there to be at least two teacher representatives. Indeed, all these reforms to governing bodies will put power into the hands of head teachers at the expense of parents, teachers and the community as a whole.
	Because it has been only two years since the last set of reforms, which in general were welcomed and did introduce long-needed changes such as a role for support staff on the governing body, I do not understand why the Government propose to turn everything upside-down again.
	Amendments Nos. 105 and 108 refer respectively to subsection (7) in Clause 18 and subsection (4) in Clause 19. Both foresee the possibility of federations of schools being formed under one governing board. Those of us who remember the pre-Taylor days in the 1960s, when 10 or even 20 schools were often grouped under one governing board, know what a difference individual governing boards have made to the ethos and morale in schools. Quite frankly, we do not want to go back to those days. The clauses in question are Clauses 23 and 24. I shall return to those when we consider whether they should stand part of the Bill.
	I should like Members of the Committee to bear in mind that the pre-Taylor days were not good days in terms of school governance. We have moved a long way from that position. Where we have discovered good methods, then we should now stick with them. Stirring everything up and introducing changes is not always the right way forward, modernisation or no modernisation.
	For the moment, I go back to Amendment No. 102 and the need for there to be national rules and national structures for governing boards. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I feel that we might be talking at odds on these amendments. I certainly agree with the fundamental question put by the noble Baroness: why do we need to make changes? It appears that some pretty good arrangements are already in place. However, I am worried about the arrangements being controlled entirely from the centre. Flexibility at the local level is quite important and schools should be free to determine how they are going to operate, but within the framework of the law.
	Turning to federations, my own view on including the clauses on federations rather than removing them, as the noble Baroness seeks to do, is that I, too, have grave reservations about the overall proposal for federations, which we shall come to later. However, if they are to be set up, then there have to be certain rules setting out how they are to be governed. It would be quite wrong to leave the proposal for federations on the face of the Bill without the Government setting out some view of how such schools are to be represented and how the different interests in particular schools would be protected. Those interests may be ones covering special needs, specialist matters or protecting the interests of professional versus non-professional staff. Whatever might be the interests, there will need to be some regulation.
	For that reason, I would not be able to argue against the inclusion of subsection (7) in Clause 18 and subsection (4) in Clause 19. They should stand part of the Bill if the Government succeed in establishing federations of schools as a possible way forward.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I turn first to Amendment No. 102. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, that there is a need for an appropriate level of prescription on the constitution and procedures of governing bodies to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place.
	It is our current intention to make regulations covering the specific items listed in Clause 18(3). We have set out our intention in our policy statement which has been available to the House. The point about "may" is that there may come a time when such regulations are not needed. Making unnecessary regulations would impede governing bodies' ability to choose and adopt arrangements that best suit their particular circumstances and it would thereby risk making governing bodies less effective.
	For example, within the clause, paragraph (l) provides for,
	"other matters relating to the constitution or procedure of governing bodies".
	Paragraph (j) refers to,
	"the appointment of persons other than governors to serve on committees of governing bodies".
	Subject to consultation, those paragraphs may not require regulations under the proposed new arrangements. It may be more appropriate and helpful to governing bodies to cover those areas in guidance rather than in regulations.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 105 and 108. We shall debate the whole concept of "federation" and I look forward to doing so. However, the purpose behind it is to enable schools to collaborate strategically.
	Amendment No. 105 would mean that each individual school which chose to federate would have to retain its own individual governing body. That in turn would mean that the governing body of the federation would effectively be an overarching structure that would sit above each school's individual governing body. It seems to me that this amendment would result in the worst of both worlds. The existence of a supra-governing body for the federation of schools would undermine the role of the individual governing bodies while adding greatly to the workload and bureaucracy.
	I do not consider that that would be a way forward. It is our intention—we shall debate the matter at length—that when a school chooses to federate, it will come under the auspices of a single governing body for the whole federation in order to minimise bureaucracy and retain and increase accountability.
	As regards Amendment No. 108, perhaps I may make it clear that when schools decide to federate under a single governing body, it is our intention that the governing bodies will make a request to the LEA to draw up an instrument of government for the federation. As Members of the Committee will be aware, the instrument of government for a school is an important document that sets out the constitution.
	In our view, drawing up an instrument of government is the only sensible mechanism through which to make a change to the constitution of the governing body. I emphasise that the federation approach is not about the merger of two or more schools into one. Indeed, within the federation each school will retain its character and structural arrangements.
	As regards Amendment No. 109, perhaps I may reassure Members of the Committee that it is indeed our intention to make regulations setting out the terms of reference for the governing bodies of maintained schools; to define the respective roles and responsibilities of the LEA, the governing body and the head teacher in the conduct of the school; and to confer functions on governing bodies and head teachers.
	We intend to build on the existing regulations to include one important additional element. Schools have greater autonomy than ever before, but there are a number of areas where the local education authority does have a role and responsibility in the conduct of individual schools; for example, in offering advice on head teacher appointments to community and voluntary-controlled school governing bodies, or taking direct responsibility where the delegated budget has been suspended.
	The role of the LEA in school education has been fully described in the revised code of practice on LEA school relations, issued last year. It is not our intention to amend in any way LEA roles or responsibilities, but rather to ensure that governing bodies are fully aware of the issues.
	I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness that we intend to regulate on all the areas provided for. The use of the permissive "may" is not intended to water down that commitment, but rather to recognise in legal drafting terms that there is no over-riding requirement to have such regulations in existence in order for governing bodies, head teachers and LEAs to conduct their statutory responsibilities. As time progresses, it may be that in certain areas we would want to rely more on guidance than regulations, but for the present time I can assure Members of the Committee that we fully intend to regulate in this area and that the existing regulations will remain in force until we have done so.
	I hope that in the light of those assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Peston: We appear to be having the debate under a misconception. I have previously enunciated to Members of the Committee the golden rule of opposition. It is that every time the word "may" appears it is the duty of the Opposition to substitute "shall" and that every time the word "shall" appears it is the duty of the Opposition to substitute "may". I did that for many years when I was desperately trying to make a contribution to a Bill I did not understand.
	It is inconceivable that we could have governing bodies if they did not have regulations. Therefore, I do not see what the debate is all about. Clearly there will be regulations and I do not know why we are debating that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, we shall need to debate the regulations when they are published. However, I say to my old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that I do not see why we have spent so much time debating the issue. Can she give me an example of how this world can proceed with no regulations? We would have no governing bodies.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I was on this occasion changing "may" to "shall", thereby obeying the particular rule that he laid down! Part of the idea of the reorganisation of governing bodies is to move to a situation in which there is variable geometry and where governing bodies can vary. The proposed draft regulations indicate that there can be considerable variation but there are problems with that. Problems arise when we do not have national rules about what shall constitute quorums and instruments of government. That is the issue about which I was concerned.
	I thank the Minister for her reply. I am somewhat reassured by it because she appears to have in mind some of the issues about which I was concerned. I am most reassured by what she has said about federations. If she is right that they are largely a strategic function, it is all the more important that schools should be able to preserve their own individual boards. They may come together for particular issues, but there is a considerable difference when schools have their own boards of governors. We shall debate that matter when we discuss federations but, meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 102A:
	Page 12, line 18, leave out paragraph (h).

Baroness Blatch: In rising to move Amendment No. 102A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102B. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not feel that I ought to be rebuked for delving yet again into the shape of the regulations.
	I do not argue that there should be no regulations. There are many issues for governors and the governing body which need the protection of a framework within which to work. However, I question whether there need to be regulations relating to how governors elect their chairman or vice-chairman. I am delighted to see the word "chairman" on the face of the Bill, but the way in which he or she is elected should be a matter for the governing body. I am happy for the regulations to state that there shall be a chairman and a vice-chairman, but I do not believe that the method of their election should be covered by regulations.
	I turn to Clause 18(3)(i). Having served on governing bodies—and on more than one at any given time—I know that some will have a finance and general purposes committee, some will have an administration sub-committee and others will have other forms of committees. Governing bodies do not all have the same types of committees. They will meet their legal obligations, whatever they may be, but in their own way. In the spirit of genuinely devolving some flexibility to the governing bodies, at least paragraphs (h) and (i) should be removed from the list. I could argue that one or two others are suspect, but for the moment I believe that paragraphs (h) and (i) are otiose. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am intrigued to know what the noble Baroness thought would be there if the word "chairman" was not there. I presume it would be "chairperson" or some such other term.

Baroness Blatch: When Cambridgeshire ceased to be a Conservative controlled authority when I was the leader, the following morning I went to meet the leaders of the other two parties. I found that we had gone from being "chair" to being "spoke". For a while I was called "Madam spoke" but for much of the time we were just called "spokes". I was described as an "equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate" at the time. It was absolute nonsense. I like to be called "chairman" or "Madam chairman", but I do not like to be called "chair", "spoke" or any other such word.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My noble friend Lord McIntosh says "triumvirate" is sexist too. I am perfectly happy with the word "chairman". When I have been in the position of a chairman, that is what I have been called. I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation.
	I hope I have made clear that we have a commitment to deregulating governance legislation where it is possible and appropriate. But we want to ensure a balance between safeguards and flexibility, and while I can confirm that we will consider carefully what level of detail the regulations should contain I do not want to give the impression that we would wish to deregulate this area completely.
	The positions of chair and vice-chair are crucial to the performance of a governing body. They ensure the good conduct of meetings, that the meeting does its business well and that responsibilities are carried out. Certainly, having performed that function myself, I am well aware that chairmen of governing bodies spend a great deal of their time working closely with head teachers and with staff. They are, if you like, the first port of call for issues involving governing bodies. Their role is crucial.
	When governing bodies are looking to the "centre", if I may describe it as such, to support them, they want to know how to do certain things. It is not natural for everyone to be able to design and devise their own way of doing things. As we encourage more people to become involved in governing bodies, we do want flexibility, but we also need to lay the ground rules that will help them in their task.
	I appreciate that the provisions which at present require the clerk to seek nominations in advance from individuals and to list those names on the agenda for the meeting, and so on, were brought in to bring more openness and transparency into the procedure. However, I am prepared to reflect on the points that the noble Baroness has made and take them into account in revising the regulations. But if we deregulate in this area, each governing body could then determine how to elect its own chair. There would be a lack of consistency and I am not sure that there would be a clear safeguard to ensure a fair process. It is possible that chairs could be appointed without election.
	We want to do as much as we can to remove burdens. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness by saying that we will include only the minimum provision necessary in regulation to safeguard a transparent and fair election process for chairs and vice-chairs.
	As to Amendment No. 102B, my concern is about accountability, which is a key function of a governing body. There may be scope to deregulate some of the current provisions that apply to the establishment of committees—I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness by saying that we will consider this carefully—but a certain level of prescription is needed to clarify and safeguard accountability lines. For instance, if a governing body gives delegated authority to a committee, then the committee is accountable for the decisions it takes. It is therefore important to prescribe that the majority of members on that committee must be governors, as opposed to associate members who can be appointed to committees but are not governors, as I described earlier in relation to pupils.
	Governing body committees also deal with a number of statutory duties, such as staff discipline and, in some cases, admissions. Here again it is important to safeguard transparency and fairness by making some provision as to the membership of these committees.
	With the commitment that we will deregulate the provisions on elections of chairs and vice-chairs and the establishment of committees, where possible, within the safeguards that I have indicated, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

Lord Peston: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, responds, perhaps my noble friend will be able to clarify one issue. My noble friend said that she will reflect on what has been said on this matter. Can she tell me, either now or later, if we do not make provision for these matters by regulation, are we certain legally that the governing body could do these things? Perhaps I may make a not perfect analogy. After your Lordships had set up my economic affairs Committee I discovered that you had not set it up with any powers to establish sub-committees. When I suddenly announced that we were going to establish a sub-committee I was told, "No, you can't, because no one has given you that power".
	If my noble friend were to leave some of these matters out of regulations, can we be sure that the governing body would be allowed to do them? I do not need an answer now. I would like the same answer my noble friend gave earlier, that she will reflect on these matters before coming to a final conclusion on the regulations.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope that I have indicated that we do wish to reflect. As I said, it is a question of achieving a balance between ensuring that we have consistency and fairness and, in terms of responsibility, that the governing body is given support and regulation to ensure that it operates effectively, while at the same time recognising that some of the ways in which we have tied up our governing bodies in procedural terms could be altered and changed. As I said, I shall reflect on all of those issues and come back to the Committee on them.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will reflect on the amendments. However, whatever happened to "trust the people"? If one looks at the regulations which I have not sought to remove from the Bill, such as,
	"the number of governors, or of governors falling within any category,
	"the person or persons by whom, and the manner in which, governors are to be elected or appointed,
	"eligibility for election...
	"the term of office of governors,
	"resignation or removal from office of governors"—
	I shall not read them all out but they are pretty considerable—anyone who gets through those rules that far is capable of being either a chairman or vice-chairman of a governing body. Certainly they would be a group of people capable of forming committees and sub-committees and running them because they would have to meet their legal obligations under the Bill anyway.
	In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I thought that the basis of law in this country was that you could do anything as long as there was not a bar in law to prevent you from doing it. So, for example, if paragraph (i) was removed from the Bill, it would not mean that no governing body could form sub-committees in order to carry out their work.

Lord Peston: We do not live in a society where you can do anything you like. We live in a society where all kinds of bodies, public and private, are subject to laws which empower them to do certain things corresponding to what they were set up for and which prevent them from doing other things. It may well be that the law exists to enable the governing bodies to do all the things that the noble Baroness wants them to do. I was simply inquiring whether that was actually the case. My experience when serving on a body is that when dealing with matters which look reasonable to you and which you feel you should be able to do, you often discover that you have not got the powers to deal with them, even though you thought you did.
	I am merely asking my noble friend, who has promised to do exactly what the noble Baroness wants—that is, to look at this issue—to bear that in mind. It seems a perfectly reasonable thing to ask and I am delighted with her reply that she will look at these matters. I do not wish to rebuke the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but I do not know why she is persisting with her remarks on this issue.

Baroness Blatch: It is because I believe implicitly that the governing bodies will get on with it and do an extremely good job. There is no evidence anywhere that there has been an abuse of this procedure. I was told a long time ago that rules and regulations are only there as a guide for when things go wrong. I was always told that a body which worries about its rules and regulations is usually a body failing. By and large, governing bodies do the right thing in the interests of their schools, their children and their parents. I trust them to do that.
	I certainly trust them to appoint from within their number a chairman or vice-chairman. In answer to my question about that, the noble Baroness said that it is possible that a chairman could be appointed without an election. The governing body would have to guide that. If someone put their hand up and said "I would like to be chairman", and the governing body were happy with that and everyone said "Fine", that would be an endorsement by the governing body and perfectly all right. It does not usually happen like that. There is usually more than one person who wants to be the chairman, although in other governing bodies and in some parts of the country, getting someone to be a governor, let alone to be the chairman of governors, is quite difficult.
	I want to go down the road of trusting the people. I hope that the noble Baroness will come forward with an amendment to satisfy me in that regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
	"provided however that such regulations may not make different provision for different governors, nor for different categories of governors, save as may be necessary to give effect to requirements for the election of governors in certain categories"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104.
	This is a probing amendment. It seeks to ensure that all the various categories of governors are governed by the same or similar regulations. As my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford said earlier, the Government last changed the constitution of governing bodies only just over two years ago. The vast majority of head teachers, governors and teachers believe that there is completely and utterly no need to make further changes to the constitution of governing bodies at this stage. The status quo has evolved and is deemed by most to be satisfactory.
	Therefore, will the Minister clarify the issue of teachers standing to be parent governors in their own school? Currently, a teacher with a child in the same school as the one in which he or she teaches is able to stand either as a parent governor or as a teacher governor.
	The DfES consultation document, The Way Forward, proposed to prevent teachers who have a child in the same school from standing as parent governors. Yet the Bill makes no reference to that. What are the Government's intentions on the issue? Although I can see the potential difficulties and conflicts of interest that may be seen to arise in such cases, the Government must be able to trust all governors and governing bodies to function professionally and in the best interests of the school as a whole.
	Therefore, it seems counter-productive to set up unnecessary barriers to teacher-parents when it is difficult enough to recruit and retain parent governors, as in the cases referred to earlier by the Minister in which the parents of children who are not at the school sometimes have to be recruited. What impact does the Minister think these proposals will have on the recruitment and retention of governors?
	Amendment No. 104 seeks to prevent a reduction in the number of teaching and support staff governors on school governing bodies within the stakeholder group, unless the teaching and support staff governors have conducted the necessary ballot to approve the reduction. The amendment would mean that no change could be made to the status quo regarding the constitution of existing governing bodies without the agreement of the majority of teaching and non-teaching staff in schools.
	It is important to note that the status quo allows for representation of both teachers and support staff on the governing body—which is clearly welcome, not only to Members of the Committee, given the debate earlier, but to all the governing bodies I know. My noble friend Lady Sharp reminded us that the number of teaching assistants in schools is set to rise; therefore, it is vitally important that they, too, have the opportunity to serve on the governing body. I beg to move.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I again seek clarification on an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is my impression that a person who teaches in a certain local education authority cannot be a governor in a school under that authority unless the person is elected to be a teacher governor in his or her own school.

Baroness Walmsley: Frankly, I am not sure whether that is correct. I understood that the person could be either a teacher governor or a parent governor. Perhaps we could be advised by the Minister.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am happy to deal with the matter of teacher and parent governors, although it does not follow directly from the amendment. The amendment, as I understand it, seeks to ensure an equal voice on the governing body in terms of stakeholders. Perhaps I may address that specific matter and then turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	Our stakeholder model was the subject of full discussion and negotiation. Although I appreciate the comments that have been made about history and background, we were very clear that we needed to arrive at a point where the model made the best sense for all the stakeholders. Within that model, we do not have complete parity between the different groups. It is, for example, our view that parents and staff should represent a third of the governing body, and so on. We can discuss the stakeholder model at another time. The consequence of the amendment as drafted would be parity—which would, of course, include the sponsor governors to whom I referred, who would be additional governors. It is a consequence that we do not want.
	To take the specific issue of staff and parent governors, in deliberations on The Way Forward and in all the discussions that I have had with governing bodies around the country, we discussed the matter at length and put our proposals forward to hear different views.
	All staff will be able to put themselves forward. So those parents who are also teachers or lunch-time supervisors, or are connected with a school in any other way, will be able to put themselves forward to be elected by their peers as staff governors. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that those people who have a relationship with a school are defined in one category or another.
	The current position is that staff cannot be co-opted as governors in the schools where they are employed. We are simply extending that principle to say that, in the case of a staff member, that is his or her primary role within the school and that is the group to which he or she should be elected to the governing body. In the case of parents, it is people who are not connected with a school in terms of drawing a salary or having some kind of contract with the school. That is the principle. We are defining parents in that way and saying that, while we very much welcome people who are parents and who are involved in the school as teachers or other staff, they should stand in the category of staff governors. I hope that that makes our position as clear as possible.
	Turning to Amendment No. 104, we have attempted to get the maximum amount of support for our proposals. I am pleased with the level of support that we have received for this model. It is designed to give increasing flexibility and to recognise that schools are different and have different needs. We believe that governing bodies are best placed to decide what works for them, taking account of local and specific circumstances. That is partly in response to what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is partly looking for from us.
	The approach that we are advocating is about giving governing bodies a choice while ensuring that the balance between the different stakeholders is maintained. But in that context I do not believe that it is right to say that there can be a veto in terms of allowing certain groups of stakeholders to say that they will not accept it. For example, a governing body might decide that it wished to change its size. It would then have to hold ballots—which we believe would be a serious disincentive. Nor do I think it right to allow schools to retain separate categories—for example, staff and teachers—and the option to retain existing numbers. What we are attempting to do is to set out guiding principles, the model around which schools are able to determine what they want to do.
	That is our position. I recognise that this change has come at the end of other changes. However, we have committed ourselves to giving governing bodies three years to adopt a new constitutional model. We shall not move on these matters until 2006, so they will have the time for that. It is important also to emphasise that existing governors will be able to serve out their term, but we shall ask governing bodies to move by that date to the new stakeholder model with the flexibilities it entails. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may put a question to the Minister about community governors. In the policy document, the noble Baroness reminds us that the School Standards and Framework Act refers to the community governor as the person who is appointed a member of the school's governing body by being co-opted by governors who have not themselves been so appointed. As I understand it, the regulations will extend that, and it is not made clear in which way.
	It is my understanding that a teacher in the community—who may not necessarily be a teacher at that particular school—up until we left office was available for co-option or even for election as a governor at the school. I am not sure how the present definition in paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 in the School Standards and Framework Act is to be re-written in the regulations, and in what way they will be extended to include wider interests.
	As to the draft regulations, it would be enormously helpful to all sides if we could have sight of those before we reach the next stage of the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am certainly happy to take away the noble Baroness's request to look at draft regulations. The position of a teacher who does not teach at the school and who might be co-opted through the community route is as it was. As a co-optee, that would be perfectly appropriate. The purpose of extending and looking at the community group is specifically to see whether we can widen out within that co-opted group. For example, if the school has a number of looked-after children, one of the co-optees might be someone from social services who has particular expertise in that area. A school might look to co-opt around particular groups of children people who have expertise in special educational needs, and so on. We want to enable schools to think creatively about who can bring additional support and interests to the school. Another example might be someone with a particular interest in a curriculum subject. We are trying to broaden things out in that way. I shall take the noble Baroness's request on board and I repeat again that teachers at other schools can be community governors.

Baroness Walmsley: I think that the amendments have served their purpose in clarifying the Government's position. As I understand it, under the regulations a teacher with a child at a school will be able to serve on the governing body only as a teacher and not as a parent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
	Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Incorporation and powers of governing body]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 129, line 18, leave out "and" and insert "or"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Instruments of government]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 12, line 43, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
	"( ) The local education authority shall make the instruments of government for all its maintained schools and shall determine matters to be dealt with in such instruments, the form of such instruments, and the review and variation of such instruments."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The amendment would re-establish a principle currently in primary legislation. Every school has an instrument of government controlling who is a member of the governing board. Since the Education Act 1980, these have been made by the local education authority. Before that, the LEA made the instrument for county schools and the DES for voluntary schools.
	The current law requires that the local education authority makes the instruments of government for each school. The Bill will make subject to regulations the body that will approve the instrument. It does not say that the LEA will do it, although until now the LEA has been written into primary legislation as the body that shall do that. There is no suggestion that the regulations are not going to designate the local education authority as the body to do it. It is the obvious body to do so. It has local knowledge of the schools and it has the authority to do it. Moving the principle that the LEA should make the instrument of government out of primary legislation and into secondary legislation seems pretty pointless. It has the opposite effect to the Government's desire to deregulate and creates more bureaucracy. Why is it necessary to make the change? I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We propose that the procedures will be largely a continuation of the existing arrangements in Schedule 12 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. I assure the noble Baroness that local education authorities will continue to be responsible for making instruments of government for all maintained schools and that the requirements for consulting interested parties will not be changed. Those assurances are contained in section 4.2 on page 18 of the policy statement that has been put in the Library.
	We believe that it is necessary that regulations are provided in this way. Noble Lords will be aware that existing legislation obliges LEAs to ensure that all maintained schools have an instrument, but allows the governing body to prepare and submit a draft instrument to the LEA for authorisation. The governing body of any school with foundation governors is required to submit a draft to other relevant parties, such as those who appoint foundation governors, the trustees and the diocesan authority.
	The existing arrangements are consistent with the flexible approach of the new stakeholder framework and are therefore being carried forward. They reflect the spirit of the new framework, which allows governing bodies to choose their membership in response to the particular needs and circumstances of the schools. We believe that they are therefore best put in regulations. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I seek a little clarification from the Minister. Am I right in thinking that the change that she is proposing is that schools should be able to make their own instruments of government, which would be vetted by local education authorities to make sure that they met the required principle? Whereas primary legislation currently puts responsibility for making the instruments of government into the hands of the local education authority, that responsibility can now shift to the schools.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Existing legislation allows that schools can draft their own instrument and submit it to the LEA for authorisation. We are putting the issue in regulations because we think that that is a simpler way. That does not change the substance. We think that it contributes to simplifying education legislation and adds no extra bureaucracy. There will be a partnership between schools and local education authorities in the drawing up of the instrument, but the responsibility is firmly with the local education authority.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply. There seems little need to change current legislation, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [General responsibility for conduct of school]:
	[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Clerk to the governing body]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 110:
	Page 14, line 6, at end insert "provided that, for a foundation or voluntary aided school, the body shall be the governing body"

Baroness Blatch: I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We seem to have pages and pages of changes, but we have to ask what they are improving, what they are changing and what is their purpose. A great deal of time could be saved, as could a great deal of anxiety on the part of schools. When we pass a new Act of Parliament, schools start to worry about what new things they have to do. In an attempt to be helpful, the Minister constantly tells us that the proposals are no different from what schools are doing at the moment, so they need not worry and there will be no extra burdens. The underlying question is: why change?
	I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 and argue that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. Paragraph (b) says that regulations shall cover,
	"prescribing the body by whom any such appointment is to be made and any restrictions or other requirements relating to any such appointment".
	In foundation and voluntary aided schools, that should be a matter for the governing body. Paragraph (c) refers to,
	"the dismissal of any such clerk and the procedure to be followed in connection with his dismissal".
	For a foundation or voluntary aided school, the decision to dismiss a clerk should be taken by the governing body.
	One of the reasons why the body that represented grant maintained schools went along with the proposals to give them the option to become community schools or foundation schools was the promise that they would continue to enjoy a great deal of autonomy on how they ran their affairs. It is important to continue to honour that pledge. The governing body should be given responsibility in such cases.
	I then argue against myself and ask why we should have regulations at all. Let the governing bodies get on with what they do well. This is an area that does not require regulating; that there should be a clerk to the governing body is sufficient. How it appoints the clerk or how he or she operates as a clerk to the governing body and whether he or she does his job well, badly or indifferently should be a matter for the governing body. Whether a clerk should be dismissed should also be a matter for the governing body. I hope that the noble Baroness will be sympathetic to that argument. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I feel that I ought to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for raising this matter and, indeed, I am. However, I am in some difficulty because it is not clear to me who is the prescribed body for other schools. It seems to me to make perfect common sense, given that voluntary-aided schools and foundation schools appoint head teachers and so on, that this small task should be given to them. However, I should have thought that all governing bodies would be perfectly capable of handling that task and would not need some other body to do it. As I do not have the regulations, I have tried to study the Explanatory Notes but they do not help me in this regard. Therefore, I should be grateful for some clarification on the matter. I hope that we shall receive some elucidation on who appoints clerks to all schools.

Lord Peston: I, too, wish to ask a question or two for elucidation. I take it that we are still discussing maintained schools here and not any other schools. I am intrigued that the Bill uses the words "appointment" and "dismissal" with regard to clerks. However, it does not use the word "employment" with regard to clerks. Therefore, I ask whether there is some special significance in the word "appointment"? I would normally assume that whoever employs a person has the right to dismiss him or her. However, is a clerk in some relevant legal sense not employed but appointed? If "appointment" here simply refers to the employer and we then assume that a governing body is the employer, there can be no doubt whatsoever who is the correct body to dismiss a clerk. However, if I am completely wrong and the clerk is not employed but appointed and that means something different, it does not follow logically that the governing body is the relevant body to dismiss him, in which case the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is correct to say that as that is the appropriate body we ought to make it clear that it is the relevant body or rather the legally entitled body.
	However, no problem arises of the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned if the governing body is the employer of the person we are discussing. If the governing body is the employer, it may dismiss that person. That is very clear. I raise these points in the form of questions. It is important that we have been enabled to do so as a result of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

Baroness Blatch: I shall not answer on behalf of the Minister as I do not know what the response is for the generality of cases. However, my local school had a clerk to the governing body for about 35 years. He was a volunteer, as were the governors. Therefore, he was not employed but he had duties under the law. He was appointed by the governors. He carried out the job extremely well. It was for the governors to appoint him and for them to say that they no longer wished to retain him as clerk if they were dissatisfied with him.

Lord Peston: In that case, the amendment is not needed. If it is simply the case that the governing body appoints the person, it can "unappoint" the person. There is not a problem there and I do not see what the fuss is about. However, I am sure that there is some subtlety here that I am completely missing.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall try to enlighten my noble friend Lord Peston. I shall, as it were, "park" for a moment the volunteer clerk mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Clerks in many schools are paid. As regards foundation and voluntary-aided schools, the governing body is the employer. As regards community and voluntary-controlled schools, the LEA is the employer. That is the employment position.
	I take a moment to eulogise clerks. Anyone who has served on a governing body—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will agree with this point—will know that clerks are truly vital people. They play an important role in ensuring that governing bodies operate effectively. It is their job to ensure that procedures are followed. They keep in touch with local education authorities. Many have developed further expertise through training and understand issues of law. It becomes obvious if such clerks are lacking in a governing body. Governing bodies can get into difficulties if they do not have an efficient clerk. Many schools have excellent clerks but that is by no means universal.
	From my own experience and from my more recent experience at the department I have been struck by the fact that there has not previously been a common understanding of the role that a clerk should play. They play different roles in different schools. That is why—this is an incidental point—we have commissioned the development of a training package for school clerks. We have ready to deliver next year a training package that we believe will be relevant to all school clerks whether they are employed by LEAs, individual governing bodies or whatever. It will include a self-study option, so that we can provide some support at last for this band of people who do such an important and valuable job.
	I turn to Amendment No. 110. The regulations we envisage making under Clause 22 will largely roll forward the existing requirements in Part IV of the 1999 School Government Regulations. It is an important principle enshrined in those regulations that the governing body should select its own clerk. The clerk is answerable to the governing body and should be chosen by it. The existing regulations provide for foundation, foundation special and voluntary-aided schools to appoint their own clerks. In community, community special and voluntary-controlled schools the clerk is still, as I said, selected by the governing body but, as with other staff appointments in those schools, is appointed and employed by the local education authority. I hope that that makes the position clear for my noble friend.
	I turn to Amendment No. 111. In the rare cases where it is necessary to dismiss a clerk, the governing body will normally take that decision. Governing bodies retain the right to determine that they do not wish to accept the services of a particular individual, even where clerking is being provided under a subscription buy-back service from a local education authority.
	We believe that it is right that governing bodies should select and have the power to dismiss the clerk and we shall replicate that principle in the new regulations. As I say, that is in keeping with the principle of individual school autonomy and will be appropriate in the vast majority of cases.
	I address both Amendments Nos. 110 and 111. I hope that those reassurances are helpful. Let me now turn to the exceptions to this general position. The existing regulations already prevent governing bodies of voluntary-aided or foundation or foundation special schools appointing or dismissing a clerk without the local education authority's consent if the school has lost its delegated budget and to allow the LEA to direct that a clerk in one of those schools should be dismissed.
	However, where things go wrong it may be appropriate to allow a local education authority, or the relevant contractor where it has taken over the local education authority's functions, to be nominated as a prescribing body. A good clerk can play a crucial role in helping to turn a failing school around and it may be appropriate in those circumstances to allow a local education authority in supporting a school in special measures to designate who that clerk should be. The Ofsted representative on our Advisory Group on Governance has told the group that Ofsted has observed that placing a good clerk on a governing body of a school in special measures can play a significant role in training and supporting that governing body to play a more effective role.
	Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 would remove any possibility that the local education authority could make decisions about clerking in any foundation or voluntary-aided school which had had its delegated budget removed. The local education authority has a responsibility to intervene where schools are in difficulties and we believe that its powers should apply equally to all maintained schools whatever their category. I agree that the principle of self- determination is an important one for schools. I also recognise that in voluntary-aided and foundation schools the governing body is the employer. But where schools have serious weaknesses or are in special measures it is surely right that special arrangements should apply to allow for the removal of a weak clerk in order to allow the governing body to take the school forward.
	I turn to the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. As I said, the clause replicates without amendment provisions that are currently contained in Schedule 11 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It is required because Schedule 11 will be repealed by the Bill. It will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the appointment and dismissal of clerks. Good clerking is the key to good governance and key provisions relating to appointment and dismissal should be the subject of some regulation. The clause is therefore a necessary part of the Bill.
	I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that in the vast majority of cases governing bodies will continue to select and dismiss their own clerk and that we should be able to make appropriate provisions with regard to clerking through regulations. With those explanations and assurances I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment and her opposition to clause stand part.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: That is extremely helpful. The education of young people and children is what we are about. If a school is failing, they need all the help that they can get. I take the Minister's remarks about the clerk's role in that regard; it is absolutely essential.
	On regulations, I wonder whether the LEA could work in collaboration with the diocesan authorities. In my diocese, quite a lot of that already goes on and is very helpful. I should not want to make that binding but it would be a helpful addition; perhaps the phrase, "in consultation with" could be used. I hope that the clause will stand part because we do not live in a perfect world and there are circumstances in which it is necessary to have regulation of clerking—of the way in which people are appointed and dismissed.

Lord Peston: I have no particular interest in the sub-set of schools; I have an interest in clerks in general. The clause should clearly stand part of the Bill; it would be absurd if it did not. I am a little troubled about one aspect of my noble friend's reply.
	In my experience, one can have a perfectly good clerk—perhaps an excellent clerk—who simply does not get on with the chairman or the governing body. One sometimes has to accept that one has a simple choice: either the governors go or the clerk goes. That is not the clerk's fault; the people concerned simply do not get on. I can imagine a similar case in your Lordships' House, which, happily, has never happened to me. Those of us who chair committees are simply told that X is our Clerk. I could be given a Clerk—I hypothesise entirely—whom I did not like. That has never happened; I have always had marvellous Clerks. I have no right to dismiss a Clerk. Goodness knows what would happen if I suddenly found myself in that position.
	One has to accept the fact that, as the right reverend Prelate said, this is not a perfect world and that we do not all get on with each other. We therefore must have procedures whereby one simply has to say to a clerk, "Look, you are very good but you have to go". That is the reverse of what my noble friend the Minister was saying. I hope that she is not saying that one can only get rid of a clerk who is not very good. Sometimes, one has to get rid of a clerk who may be too good but the governing body cannot cope with him.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope that I did not give the impression suggested by my noble friend Lord Peston. I was trying to be specific. The relationship between a clerk and a governing body, in the vast majority of cases, is a relationship between all good people trying to work together. That occasionally does not work. That is for them to work out. This is a different instance; we are concerned purely with the case in which a school is in real trouble and how the position could affect the way in which it tries to get out of trouble. I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn that I am happy to talk further with him about a collaborative approach.

Baroness Blatch: I am sure that there are clerks who occasionally have not got on with their governing body. However, the level of dependency of a governing body on a clerk is usually such that it is only too pleased to have him; he receives the mail, reads all the bumf that comes into school and alerts teachers, head teachers and governors to what they should be thinking about or doing. A clerk is one of a governing body's best friends, not one of its worst.
	I do not think that the sky would fall in if the situation was not regulated. I accept absolutely the point made by the right reverend Prelate. One difficulty with regulation is that when things start to go wrong with schools, some schools are in denial and will not seek help but others are desperate for help and are very happy to collaborate. I do not believe that there is anything that stands in the way of an LEA collaborating with a Church school or a maintained school. Schools are free to seek that help. I should not want to stand in the way of that.
	Another problem with regulation—I have not yet seen many flexible regulations—is that Bills can be broad-brush painted canvases but when regulations are produced, they are "one size fits all" regulations. Very few regulations state, "This is how you should do something". Some schools may have their own way of doing things. My worry is about the straitjacket of regulations and the fact that one constantly has to hold the manual in one hand while trying to be good governors and good clerks to governing bodies. I have a natural dislike of regulations. They should exist only when absolutely necessary.
	I have a question in passing, although I do not expect the Minister to answer it tonight. It would be interesting to know how many sets of regulations will be spawned by the Bill. We are only up to Clause 22 but we have already passed a fair number of regulations.
	The language of regulations is very off-putting. The Plain English Society has been fighting for years for us to do something about regulations. What do we do when regulations are complex and legalistic? We produce guidance. That means that in this area there will be: an Act of Parliament; cross-referencing from one piece of legislation to another because we have not consolidated enough; regulations; and guidance or guidelines on how to operate the regulations. There may also be a poor clerk to a governing body—that is the subject of my amendment—who has to interpret all of that for the governors. The more flexibility that there is in regulations, the better.
	The right reverend Prelate made an important point. When schools need to seek help, they should not be inhibited; they should be free to do so—we should not stand in the way of that. I shall not press the amendment but there is at least something for the Minister to reflect on between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Federations of schools]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Page 14, line 17, after "may," insert "after obtaining the consent of the local education authority and"

Baroness Walmsley: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 134.
	The Bill introduces two new, innovative and powerful ways in which schools can work together; namely, through federation and the joint discharge of functions. Local government will wish to support schools as they develop new ways of working. The amendments will ensure that before schools develop those new structures, they will have the advice and support of an LEA.
	Amendment No. 112 requires any school that intends to federate to receive the consent of the LEA. It is necessary, given the financial, legal and administrative issues involved in federation, for the LEA to be involved and supportive from the earliest possible opportunity.
	Amendment No. 134 would ensure that the LEA was consulted before two governing bodies arranged to discharge any function jointly when they do not wish to federate. The purpose of the clause is to encourage joint working when government bodies do not wish to federate. The amendment provides a safeguard for local communities and community interests—that governing bodies that wish jointly to discharge functions can do so only after consultation with the local authority. The amendment will also help local authorities to encourage schools jointly to discharge functions when individually they might not be keen to do so. That could assist local authorities to raise standards because a strong governing body would be encouraged to work with a weaker one in specific circumstances. In practice, joint working and partnership has always been seen as being beneficial to both parties because even the weakest corporate body has some strengths from which lessons can be learnt.
	As we said in relation to other amendments dealing with this issue, it is crucially important for the LEA to be able to assess the impact on other provisions, so as not to distort existing provisions or enhance one or two schools to the detriment of others in the authority. I shall not repeat the arguments about LEA involvement—they were well rehearsed in a previous sitting. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114, which are included within this group. I have reservations about the federations. The Minister has not yet given us examples of things that schools can do together under one governing body without the whole panoply of these clauses and rafts of regulations necessarily being imposed on them.
	I am reminded of something that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said earlier, which raised alarm bells for me. That was the description of the pre-Taylor governing bodies. Large swathes of the country, in particular in county areas, had one governing body. Under those bodies, some schools were very successful, some performed indifferently and some failed badly. But, somehow or other, those situations were allowed to go unattended and unaddressed because the governing bodies simply were not geared to representing the interests of each school. The implementation of the Taylor report brought about great change, and schools gained their own governing bodies.
	Having said that, some Members of the Committee will know that we fought very hard for two small Church schools—one primary and one junior—on one site to have a single governing body. However, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the pre-Taylor days when large swathes of schools were represented by one governing body. I hope that that experience will be in the back of people's minds when these federations are formed.
	Secondly, the federation idea is not new. Again, I refer to my experience in Cambridgeshire. The noble Baroness will know the area that I am talking about—the Newmarket area. In those days, there was a great deal of concern about very small schools. We put together three small schools whose total number of pupils, I believe, was fewer than 50—that is, for all three.
	We believed that that was the answer to a prayer. Rather than close the schools, the children would stay put and the teachers would move around the federation. It did not quite end in tears but it failed as an experiment due to the logistics of coping in a country area with different schools and with the same teachers running around them. It is true that the schools had more teachers and that the system extended choice to the children. But, ultimately, it did not work. Eventually the schools closed and the children were amalgamated into a single school.
	We should not underestimate some of the difficulties that can arise in relation to federations. It may make sense for two or more schools to come together for a particular project—perhaps a building or educational project, or perhaps to provide economies of scale and further liberate capacity. I see no inhibitions in relation to that happening at present.
	However, we are talking about something very different here. The notion of federations, as incorporated within these clauses, is that schools would come together for everything that they do. A single governing body would manage all the schools within the federation. There would be no limit on the number or type of schools. I believe that we should think very carefully about whether that would work.
	I know that the noble Baroness will probably say, "But this is not an imposition. These are permissive clauses. Schools can opt, if they wish, to become federated. They will not be compelled to do so". I accept that, but I worry about the detail. As always, the devil will be in the detail, and we shall not see the detail until these dreaded sets of regulations, governing how the whole system will work, are produced.
	Amendment No. 113 seeks to deal with a concern that I have at the back of my mind about the use of federation as a mechanism for doing other things. Coming together collaboratively is one thing, but it is possible that, as it pools its sovereignty, if I may use that word, a school will also lose some of its distinctive character.
	Therefore, the amendment states that the action of becoming a part of a federation should not be used to change the nature or character of a school. I cite, for example, religious schools, single sex schools, co-educational schools and the legal status of a school—that is, foundation, voluntary-aided, community or academy. Having read the clauses in the Bill, I am not sure whether under a federation a school would be an academy, a nursery school, a Church of England voluntary-aided school or a Catholic voluntary-controlled school. Would it continue to enjoy that status and would that status be in any way compromised by the act of becoming part of the federation?
	In relation to single sex schools, of which there are not too many, there is now a great deal of evidence to show that teaching boys and girls separately at certain stages and for certain subjects in the curriculum is educationally beneficial. I know of an experiment in Essex—it is probably now past being an experiment—in which the headmaster of a single school—not a single sex school—decided to separate the boys and girls and teach them separately. So far as I know, that worked extremely well. I believe that it is important to protect the distinctive character of schools.
	It is possible that a governing body will wish to compromise its own character voluntarily. It may wish to relinquish the distinctive ethos of a school. If that is permitted under these clauses, I should like to build into the legislation some form of protection for the parents and children of a school in order to ensure that it would not happen without a procedure being in place.
	Amendment No. 114, again, seeks to ensure that a single governing body—I am talking now in terms of the Government getting their way and of these clauses remaining in the Bill—includes parents and teachers from each of the constituent schools. Whether it is a specialist school, a nursery school, a religious school or a school that is co-educational or single sex, the distinctive ethos of each school should be represented on the single governing body.
	These are important points. They seek to ensure that important safeguards are put in place. I look to the Minister for a number of reassurances and, ultimately, I shall look for those reassurances on the face of the Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 116, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who has an engagement in Lancashire today and cannot be here.
	On these Benches, we were quite excited about the possibility of federation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said, it is not a new idea. We were excited until the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, spoke about the pre-Taylor days.
	I am reminded that, when I was married, my wife was the head teacher of a large infants school. I was diocesan director of education for the diocese of Durham. In the early days my wife was very surprised that I kept going out to attend governing body meetings at different schools. In the borough of Sunderland the education committee was the governing body of all the schools in that authority. My wife simply submitted a report now and again. I do not consider that that was a true governing body, and I hope that that is not in the Government's mind.
	I believe that the idea of federation is to be welcomed because, in some senses, it is visionary. In some circumstances it may serve to meet the concerns that some people have about faith schools and the separation which they believe such schools should have. I do not have those concerns but some people have them. However, that will only come about if each school is allowed to make its contribution in terms of variety and diversity of approach.
	As an example of that, today is Ascension Day. I was determined to get that into this debate somehow as I have to spend my time here when the rest of Church House is having a holiday. I hope that it might be possible for some schools to have a holiday on this day. However, that is a very simple illustration. It seems to me that the proposal is a sensible way forward provided that there is, as I said, a contribution from all the schools.
	Real issues have been raised, and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has illustrated some of them. I do not want to look at the matter in a negative way; I prefer to turn it on its head and look at it in a more positive manner. But the concerns are there.
	For us, perhaps the most important concerns would be twofold: the constitution of the governing body of such a federation, the number of governors to be appointed by the foundation or the Church and the powers that they would exercise; and the safeguards in the appointment of a head of a particular ethos of a Church of England school within the federation. I know that the Roman Catholic Church shares those views and does not believe that the Bill as drafted is sufficiently robust in providing the protection as would be the contribution we want to make.
	In a federation of three schools, for example, one of which is a Church or other religious voluntary-aided school, the Church or other religion should be able to appoint sufficient governors to the federating governing body to allow for the preservation of the religious character of the school concerned. I turn to the key aspects of the ethos of the school. "Ethos" is not a word I like. I spent a good deal of my time interviewing head teachers yesteryear. When asking, "What is distinctive about a Church school?", one would always receive the lovely answer, "It's the ethos, Cannon Chesters". Then one would go on, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would, to say, "Would you please tell me what that ethos is and what it means?" It includes such aspects as the practice of collective worship and the syllabus for religious education. Those should be matters for the Church-appointed foundation governors and not, perhaps, for the whole governing body. They are to do with the distinctive contribution of a particular school or schools. Likewise, the governors in question should have the responsibility of engaging in the appointment of a head and other members of the leadership team.
	Further, if the federation has one head and one leadership team for several schools, some of which are voluntary-aided schools, Church schools or other faith schools, there will need to be legislation about how that head is appointed and how that leadership team is constituted so as to preserve the contribution—the religious character, or whatever it is—of such schools in the federation and vice versa. We do not want to see those federations as a takeover. That works both ways. Given the popularity of voluntary-aided schools at present, we could well see a federation going that way. I have nothing to fear. I am not paranoiac about this, nor are these Benches. However, we believe that if we are to have federation, each school should contribute. As a Church, we have a fair amount of experience of federating parishes within various groupings and schemes, which has proved beneficial both in urban and rural areas.
	My amendment seeks to require the consent of the appropriate diocesan authorities before such a federation can go ahead. The schools to which I refer in my amendment are part of a family of schools. They do not exist on their own and, in the case of the Roman Catholic schools, belong to the diocese or to the bishop. I am not entirely sure about the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe that that is right. In our case, we want to work within a family and to co-operate and collaborate together. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right; we do not want a maverick group of governors to sell the birthright that others have gained by getting rid of what the foundation stands for. I do not believe that the federation is about that.
	Those are my reasons for probing the Minister with the amendment. I am an optimistic person. Surely, she will want to give me something on Ascension day. I am not too hopeful, but we shall see. I shall listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say and perhaps return to this on Report if I am not satisfied.

Baroness Blatch: A question that occurred to me while the right reverend Prelate was speaking about enthusiasm for federations concerns the constitutional position of the diocese. Certainly from my experience, standing in the shoes of the Minister, some dioceses have a strong and, in some cases, even dominant relationship with a school. Sometimes the school acquiesces in the face of that and sometimes there is a tension between the diocese and the school. It occurred to me that as well as schools federating with other schools and other partners, there is the constitutional position of the diocese. I wonder what the right reverend Prelate has to say about that.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: That is right, although in the case of Anglican schools, each school is an autonomous body. It is a larger issue for the Roman Catholic Church. Relations between dioceses and schools have improved over the 30 years or so that I have been playing this particular role in one form or another. That is because there is greater dependence on the resources which a diocese can provide in the variety and complexity of education from when I was first ordained in Southwark 40 years ago. The whole position has changed. However, the point raised by the noble Baroness is more a question for the Roman Catholic Church in law. Our schools tend to be autonomous, and there are not too many. The role of the diocese is in the appointment of governors and in giving advice to the "family" of schools in getting a sense of direction across an area.

Lord Peston: I am working hard to try to take the amendments seriously. I shall try, but if I fail I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me. When I first saw this part of the Bill, I wrote, "Oh no" in the margin because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I thought that this was taking us back to the pre-Taylor days. However, it does not remotely do so. I can see no reading of this that could possibly take us back to the pre-Taylor days. The right reverend Prelate is right to remind us, first, how appalling the pre-Taylor days were for many local authorities, and, secondly, that that cannot happen here. It cannot happen for the obvious reason that this is all permissive. This is not the Government or anyone else using powers to say, "Your two schools will federate. You will have your own governors, having had separate ones". As the Bill allows for federations of federations, the next stage will be to say, "You two federations will not federate", and so forth.
	As mentioned by the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, the provisions in the clause will be used only if schools, opting for "jointness", co-operation or any other word that has the same meaning, feel that they cannot do so on an ad hoc basis or by other means of acting jointly, but need a more formal measure. Therefore, it seems to me—perhaps my noble friend will confirm this in due course—that each will propose to the other that that is the correct interpretation. The schools will say, "We are getting closer together for all sorts of things. This particular Act of Parliament", if such it becomes, "enables us to federate. Don't you think that would be a good idea?". That seems to be a perfectly sensible way of moving forward if we believe that "jointness" is a good thing, which in many cases we do, and that federation is the way to achieve it. I have some difficulty, as have other noble Lords, in trying to think of enough jointness to lead to federation. Presumably the Government have one or two examples. I would think that most co-operation could be done on an ad hoc basis.
	The right reverend Prelate seemed to assume that somewhere out there is a group of revolutionary Catholics or Protestants who will take over a school. That group would have to find another revolutionary group with which to federate; it cannot do so on its own. That is why I have difficulty taking the amendment seriously. The mind boggles at the idea that there are great numbers of governing bodies, all of which are suddenly about to break loose and federate. Given my philosophical views, I should love to see that, but I find it impossible to believe.
	Let us take another example. When my children were young, there was Highgate Primary School—I would not describe it as the local secular or atheist school, but if we look for its ethos, that would be it—and St Michael's School down the road. The schools were simply separate. Even if this law were passed, it is impossible to believe that the two schools would federate under any circumstances. Therefore, I cannot see the problem.
	However, let us suppose that two schools co-operated closely. At my first secondary school, the boys' school was next door to the girls' school. Two such schools might get closer; the boys and girls might get closer and the two schools may federate and set up a joint governing body. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the character of both schools would change, but the whole point of the federation would be that the character of both schools would change. Therefore, to have an amendment which seeks to provide that the two schools would get closer together and that somehow we can define a concept of character which they must not change is ridiculous. The fact is that they would co-operate. From then on, some of the boys would be taught by some of the women teachers and so on. I do not think that that would be a bad thing.
	Therefore, I am particularly opposed to subparagraph (1A) of Amendment No. 113, which states that nothing should allow for the change of character. I should like to see character evolving through time. That is quite different—despite my views on religious schools—from anything being a threat to the religious nature of the school. This section could not possibly have that effect in any real world. Therefore, I reply that I have tried to take this matter seriously. I have particularly tried to take it seriously because of my original opposition to the whole idea of federation. On the assumption—following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said—that we like co-operation as a way of working within education, this gives us a step forward. I doubt very much whether many schools will decide to federate, but if they want to try the experiment, I certainly feel that they should be given the chance.

Lord Dearing: I wish to pick up a point made by the right reverend Prelate. He said, "It is not just the school, but there are other interests". Suppose we had an area where there is one Church secondary school but 10 primary Church schools. If that Church secondary school disappeared into federation and lost its character, the children's lives, as their parents see it, would be affected. So the authority of the diocese could legitimately be involved.
	However, that is not the point that I want to raise. I want to suggest that the Government should not have one model federation in mind but should be open to different varieties. Perhaps I may give an example from higher education. The Church higher education college at Roehamption comprises one Anglican college, one Methodist college, one Roman Catholic college and the Froebel Institute which does not have any affiliation.
	In that college there is one governing body for the college, but each of the individual foundations has its own governing body with reserved powers and responsibilities. Moving on, Roehampton Institute has federated with the University of Surrey. Three major responsibilities and powers are reserved to the governing body of Roehampton. Therefore, in the federation one has one body with overall responsibility for the federated entity. But that does not deny the possibility, and, indeed, the desirability of having reserved to the governing bodies of the constituent elements, certain powers and responsibilities. That would be one way to maintain particular distinctions which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I dare say the right reverent Prelate were concerned to maintain.
	In approaching this exciting idea, which I might have extended to a federation between a school and an FE college—I leave that to one side—the Government should keep an open mind about the opportunities and possibilities rather than prescribe.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I did not intend to intervene in the debate but it has become a debate on the whole issue of federation. Later we are due to discuss clause stand part, but I suspect that that debate will be somewhat truncated as we shall largely have discussed the matter.
	People are confusing the concept of co-operation and clustering with that of a federation. I read to Members of the Committee subsection (3) of Clause 23:
	"Where any schools are federated by virtue of this section, they shall
	(a) have a single governing body constituted under a single instrument of government". That is clear in the proposed legislation.
	I join with the right reverend Prelate, with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in thinking that, "Yes, schools getting together and co-operating is an absolutely splendid thing". We have had too much of schools standing on their own and competing with each other. It is clear that working together is a sensible idea. In Guildford, for example, the secondary schools work together. There is a certain amount of sharing, in terms of the curriculum and specialist subjects and so on. But perhaps there is not enough.
	Let us take what happened to a group of primary and secondary schools in Guildford at the time we were talking about the King's Manor—now King's College—problems. It was proposed to create an education action zone. A group of half-a-dozen primary schools and two secondary schools were to be put into that education action zone. They would each lose their boards of governors. There would be a single governing body for the whole zone.
	I was immediately worried, partly because the primary school of which I was a governor was one of those proposed for the zone. I recognised how important it was for that primary school, which had been in special measures but was moving out very fast, to have its own board of governors because it helped to create a good feeling. The board reflected the local community. That is what boards of governors do. For a school it is an important channel of communication into the local community.
	There are great dangers in moving down this route without thinking hard about it. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is a permissive rather than a statutory regulation: we are not forcing schools. I am worried that in some hands the whole concept of clustering will become more than just clustering. It will push schools into the concept—as they were trying to push on us with the Education Act—of doing away with the individual ethos of schools and with the individual governing boards.
	We must be a little wary of the provision. I suspect that we shall end up by leaving it on the statute book. It is vitally important that we recognise that it is permissive on the statute book and that it is not mandatory on schools to go down this route. Schools should not be pushed along this route for spurious economies of scale, which are pushed on them either by the Secretary of State or by local education authorities which are short of funds.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I hope that the noble Baroness did not gain the impression that I was not taking the federation seriously. That is why I spoke for rather longer than I have previously about our concerns. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, this is a possible way forward which might meet some of the challenges that we face. But I hope that I did not give the impression that we were not concerned about the one governing body. That was not the purport of my remarks.

Lord Peston: I do not want to let this matter go because it is a very serious argument. I hope that my noble friend will, first, reassure the Committee that this model of pressure, "You schools, if you want any money, will have to federate", is not one that is remotely implied by the Bill. It certainly did not occur to me that that was so. Secondly—and I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, views the matter so grudgingly—I view federating as an opportunity. I accept that logically it follows that the federated school would become the federated school with its governing body. That must be the case. One would then have to accept that in any local area this group of two or three took a wise decision.
	I hate to make any tart remarks to Members of the Committee opposite, but they have said how keen they are on governing bodies and how important they are to the school. If the schools federate it follows that they should trust the governing bodies. If they get together and decide that it is in the best interests of all their schools to federate, that is the right outcome. But at this point it will be the governing body of the federated enterprise. It is unavoidable.
	The noble Baroness has put her finger on the issue of regret: "Oh, I am sorry that our separate school has now gone". The answer is that we are sorry that it has now gone, but a case has been made out by the relevant people that this is the right way forward. I know that it is a situation of, "Is the pot half full or half empty?". However, in this case I am optimistic—I think that the right reverend Prelate used that word—that this is an opportunity that could be grasped. I repeat that I think that that will be rare, but I should like—what is my cliché for today?—to give it a fair wind.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, did I hear him say that a school would go with its governing body? My understanding is that it would go without its governing body. It would share sovereignty over the running and management of the school. The governing body would be disbanded. For many schools that would be a leap into the dark that might or might not work.

Lord Peston: I trust governing bodies to take the decision to form a federated school. My model is therefore not one of outside forces making people do things that they do not want to do. It is one of governing bodies thinking about what is in the interests of each of their schools and forming a federation with a federated governing body. If I may provoke the noble Baroness, it is like the countries of Europe deciding to pool some of their sovereignty to produce a European Community—which many of us favour overwhelmingly as the future. We do not feel any loss of sovereignty or anything else. That is the model that I should like the noble Baroness to think of when she considers the matter.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall attempt to follow my noble friend's remarks. This is a dangerous area, but the French are still French, the Italians are still Italian and the Spanish are still Spanish. The point is that schools will retain their ethos. The decision is about a strategic objective.
	I want to build on the enthusiasm of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and encourage other Members of the Committee to be enthusiastic. The provision is part of a range of collaborative approaches to allow schools to come together in different ways and work together in collaboration.
	Clause 29 provides the opportunity for schools to form joint committees. Those of us who went through de-grouping—which I am pleased that no Member of the Committee has yet mentioned—as I did, remember that one of the big issues for an infant and junior school when de-grouping was how to ensure that curriculums worked effectively together. We are considering a range of collaborative measures of which federation is one.
	I shall give the Committee two or three real examples from schools and local allocation authorities to whom we have been talking about the provision—because it has arisen from discussion. I can think of at least one area where a special school is co-located on a community school site—something that we are considering in other contexts to support our special schools but also to enable the special school's expertise to become part of the expertise within the mainstream sector. It is considering the model of federation. It may decide to choose another collaborative model, but it is considering whether that model would make sense for it.
	Infants' and junior schools may want to federate. Those working in rural communities such as those described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may consider that a federated model would be easier for them and allow them to think more strategically. Schools with sixth forms that are working increasingly in collaboration are thinking about how to ensure that their sixth forms thrive and that their students can come together to take advantage of the different subjects offered in the different schools. Federation may be an approach that they want to follow.
	Another example was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, which concerns what I would call the social inclusion agenda. Schools coming together in some areas could enable us to consider closer collaboration—working effectively together—between schools of different faiths and of none.
	That is the backdrop. Federation is permissive. It can work only if it is what governing bodies want to do— I stress that.
	I shall deal with the amendments individually because they raise different points about ensuring that the character and ethos of a school remains. I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 112 and 116. Federation will work only if it is entered into because schools want it and are committed to making it work. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, the decision to federate must be entirely voluntary. I am not sure that that would be the case if the appointing body for one stakeholder group had power to determine which schools could federate. That would be the effect of the amendments.
	Amendment No. 112 would effectively allow local education authorities to decide which schools should or should not federate. I take this opportunity to say that we do not intend federations to become a tool for local education authorities to rationalise governance provision within their area. That is not their purpose. Federations are in no way intended to reduce the diversity of schooling provision available.
	Amendment No. 116 would mean that any Church of England, Church of Wales or Roman Catholic school could join a federation only with,
	"the written consent of the appropriate diocesan authority".
	The amendment would have the unfair effect of applying a two-tier system for considering federations involving any maintained school with a religious character, as the religious leaders of minority faith schools would not enjoy a similar veto. It should be remembered that there are a range of other stakeholders, including parents and staff, who are just as important. I am sure that the Committee would agree that we must be fair in allowing each stakeholder to have an equal voice in the decision to federate.
	The people best placed to weigh up the views of all the relevant stakeholders and take a balanced decision on whether federation is in the best interests of the school involved is the school's governing body—including the LEA and, where appropriate, foundation representatives. That is why we propose that the decision whether to federate should rest with the governing body of each school. Of course, as part of the decision-making process, the governing body will have to consult. I recognise the importance of ensuring that that consultation is carried out thoroughly and consistently. That is why we will develop regulations setting out the procedures for consultation with all the key parties, including the local education authority and the diocesan authority, before the decision to federate is taken.
	I draw the Committee's attention to a further important safeguard in the process for agreeing an instrument of governance for the governing body for federation. I assure the Committee that we will not be removing any rights currently enjoyed by bodies in relation to agreeing the instrument of government. Currently, for maintained schools that have foundation governors, the school's governing body and the local education authority are required to agree the instrument of government and any alteration to it with foundation interests. That includes those who appoint foundation governors, trustees and the diocesan authority. In the interests of parity and fairness, regulation will provide that that requirement also applies to the instrument of government developed for schools with foundation governors that are federated under a single governing body.
	If any of the parties above, including the diocesan authority, disagrees with the instrument of government or any alterations to it for a school within a federation involving foundation governors, the case can be referred to the Secretary of State. She will then arbitrate after taking representations from the relevant parties and come to a final decision.
	That is exactly the same process as currently successfully applies to any maintained school with foundation governors. It will ensure that dioceses have the protection of arbitration by the Secretary of State if they disagree with a proposal to federate.
	I turn to Amendment No. 113. As I said, our purpose is to enable schools to collaborate strategically and through that to improve educational standards for their children. It is in no way a proposal to reduce the diversity of schooling provision available in any one area. Indeed, we have taken steps to ensure that schools within a federation should be treated as separate schools for most purposes—other than governance, of course. That means that no school will be able to change its religious character, admission arrangements, category or from single-sex to co-educational simply through the act of joining or being a member of a federation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is important to state that in the Bill, as we have indeed done in subsection 3(b).
	In relation to the character and structure of a school, the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of Parts 2 and 3 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will continue to apply to all schools within or joining a federation. Let me explain what safeguards that provides. Section 33(2) of the 1998 Act prohibits a change in the religious character of any school. That will continue to apply, regardless of whether a school joins or is already in a federation.
	In practical terms, I reassure the Committee that any proposal to change a school's religious character could, as now, be realised only by publishing proposals to close one school and open another. If a federated school wants to change its category or change from single-sex to co-educational, it will be required to publish a statutory proposal under Sections 35 and 28, respectively, of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Federation cannot be used to bypass that statutory process.
	Clause 23(3)(b) also states clearly that schools which have federated may not be treated as single schools for admission purposes. There will continue to be separate admission arrangements for every school within the federation.
	I hope that this has given reassurance that federations cannot be used as a back-door for schools to change either their character or their structural requirements. We agree with the motivation behind the amendment: that any changes in these areas should continue to require statutory proposals and be subject to scrutiny by the local school organisation committee.
	Amendment No. 113 also makes reference to "academy". Academies are not within the scope of Clause 23, which relates to maintained schools only.
	I turn to Amendment No. 114. It will be vitally important to ensure that the governing body of a federation is not too large and unwieldy to be effective. That will not help schools towards the ultimate goal of improving standards. However, at the same time, we need to ensure that all participating schools are broadly content with their level of representation on the governing bodies of federations. We expect all governing bodies of federations broadly to comply with the stakeholder principle as recommended by the Way Forward group which under Clause 18 of the Bill will be set out in regulations. We believe that that is vital to ensure that a fair balance of interest between the key stakeholders of parents, staff, LEA community, foundation and partnership governors is secured.
	All of the categories of governors applicable to the relevant schools within a federation will need to be included. Thus within a federation including aided, voluntary aided or foundation schools there will always be foundation or partnership governors.
	While it would be preferable for at least one parent representative from each school within a federation to sit on the governing body, regulation on this point could unduly constrain the ability of the governing body of a federated school to choose the size of governing body which works best for them. Simply requiring that each school within a federation has a specific level of staff representation reduces flexibility for schools. One of the objectives of federation is to allow strategic collaboration to facilitate that which is already often occurring on the ground.
	With that in mind, particularly the possibility of schools sharing staff, we think that it should be left to the governing bodies of the schools involved to propose the appropriate level of staff representation from each school on the governing body of the federation. On the stakeholder group, perhaps I may reassure the Committee that whatever the combination of schools involved in the federation, each stakeholder group particular to the category of any one school proposing to federate will be represented on the governing body.
	We think it advisable that the proportion of representation for each group should be determined on a case-by-case basis informed by consultation at local level. We intend to develop overarching principles to ensure the level of representation is fair and we shall be consulting extensively ahead of finalising the principle. However, again we would wish the regulations to leave enough scope and flexibility to allow for local circumstances surrounding each individual mixed category federation to influence the precise proportion of representation in these stakeholder groups rather than to prescribe a single formula.
	On Amendment No. 134, I emphasise that we intend to leave as much flexibility as possible open to schools so that they can devise the form of collaboration that is best for them. We firmly believe that the decisions on whether to collaborate and with whom to collaborate, the extent of collaboration and the nature and form of joint working arrangements must rest with the individual governing bodies of the school involved. Such safeguards as are necessary to ensure proper accountability—for example, that the full governing body and not a committee of each school should consent to such an arrangement, that any proposal for such an arrangement should appear as an agenda item, and that joint committees should have proper terms of reference, and so on—will be placed in regulations.
	We do not believe that it is necessary for LEAs to be formally consulted. Schools should be free to find their own partners and have sufficient experience of running their own affairs to take these decisions for themselves. But that is not to say that governing bodies should not be able to seek advice from the local education authority if they feel that it would be helpful. However, I believe that the option of whether to do so should rest with the governing body of the school involved and should be decided by them on an individual basis.
	I hope that in the light of the explanation and assurances I have provided the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: In explaining her objection to Amendment No. 112, the Minister believed that local authorities would then decide which schools would federate and which would not. The decision to federate is down to the schools. It would be right for local authorities to be able to decide which schools could not federate given their responsibility to the community in which those schools are based.
	Throughout the Bill I have been disappointed by the Minister's attitude to consultation with local authorities. In some cases where local authorities already have powers, the Government seek to remove them and give them to schools forums, and so on. In cases of new initiatives such as this one, the Government seem determined to ensure that LEAs are not involved integrally with the initiatives. That is disappointing. We shall no doubt return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage does not begin again before 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Court of Protection (Enduring Powers of Attorney) (Amendment) Rules 2002

Baroness Greengross: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules laid before the House on 27th March be annulled (S.I. 2002/832).

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, the effect of this statutory instrument is to increase substantially some of the fees paid to register an enduring power of attorney. I should add that I speak also to Statutory Instrument 833, against which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has prayed, as it relates to the same subject; namely, reforms for the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) and the Court of Protection.
	This order is all about the welfare of, quite literally, the most vulnerable people in our society: those who rely on others to manage their affairs. The general public could be forgiven for sometimes thinking that Parliament is more concerned with the welfare of foxes. It is important that we take this opportunity to consider how well the Public Guardianship Office is operating for the benefit of those who need our support so much: those who lack mental capacity.
	I have tabled my Motion because I want to ask the Government to justify the Public Guardianship Office fee increase, to highlight concerns in the way the office operates and to ask the Government to undertake to monitor the reforms to the PGO more closely, particularly in the light of the long delayed incapacity Bill which I hope will be presented shortly to Parliament.
	I was very grateful for the time the Minister gave me last week to discuss my worries about the PGO and for providing me with some factual information asked for by Written Question. I am also grateful to a number of organisations and individuals who have written to me since the debate was secured to alert me to their concerns about the PGO and specifically this statutory instrument. They include the Law Society, MIND, Action on Elder Abuse, Alzheimer's Society and Age Concern and also individual solicitors and the Master of the Court of Protection.
	The facts are these. It seems that without much notice the PGO fee structure was altered radically. Indeed, a misleading Written PQ in another place was answered on 3rd April stating that no date had been set for the new fees when in fact the regulations had been laid on 27th March and were implemented on 17th April. So we are debating tonight a statutory instrument which has already been implemented. For example, the fee to register an enduring power of attorney rose from £75 to £220 and the first year fees for receivership rose from £230 to £565. Those are substantial increases.
	The Minister has pointed correctly to the introduction of a new £65 short order fee from which many will benefit. I welcome that. But there are concerns that the new fees will still deter people from registering when there is already great concern about attorneys not registering as they should, despite the Government's policy to encourage registration. Will the impact of the new fee structure be monitored?
	Frankly, I do not believe that this legislation is being handled as well as it could be by the Public Guardianship Office. That has resulted in many people who work with the office in a professional capacity becoming frustrated with the way in which it operates. Since its establishment from the relics of the Public Trust Office, one might have expected fees to rise with inflation. However, if they were to rise substantially one would normally expect a period of notice and consultation about their impact. Instead the matter was all done and dusted within three weeks over the Easter holiday. We have to ask why.
	My second concern relates to the fee remission scheme. That there will be a clear and publicised remission scheme for both enduring powers of attorney and receiverships is welcome, but it has not yet been published nor even adequately consulted upon. I believe that the cart has come before the horse and that it would be better to delay implementation of the new fee structure until the remission scheme is firmly in place. I invite the Minister to withdraw the statutory instrument and to introduce another when the remission scheme is agreed.
	Alternatively, could the Public Guardianship Office undertake to inform any new cases that have arisen since the 17th April that they can apply under the existing unpublished remission scheme for fee remission pending the publication of the new remission scheme? If the new scheme is more generous, a procedure will have to be built in to review and to reimburse those who would have come under its remit. It is also vital that there is a clear and independent method of appeal available to those people whose fees are not remitted.
	I seek reassurance about those people, some of whom are very young, who have fluctuating mental health conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and who during their lifetime may make more than one application either for registering an enduring power of attorney or for a receiver. In such cases I firmly believe that there should be only one initial fee and no further setting-up fees requested.
	I have some wider concerns about the Public Guardianship Office that have been brought into sharp relief by the way in which this statutory instrument has been handled. The Public Guardianship Office was set up last year on the grounds that it would be self-financing; hence the fee increases are borne by the people it aims to help, for example those who lack capacity. Is there any guarantee that those fee changes do not herald further increases if the office's financial targets are not met? Can we be reassured that the changes are not being implemented because they benefit the financial viability of the Public Guardianship Office rather than the protection of the vulnerable? An additional £5.1 million will be raised in 2003-04. It also begs the question why the Public Guardianship Office has to be self-financing.
	This short debate needs to be seen in the context of proposed changes to mental incapacity legislation. That could mean that the Public Guardianship Office will have to register many more continuing powers, covering health and welfare decisions as well as financial decisions. That will be welcome.
	A further worrying anomaly has been brought to my attention that could adversely impact on the judicial discretion of the Master of the Court of Protection. There is an enormous difference between the fees—possibly many thousands of pounds—that a person would face if it were decided that he required a panel receiver and the fact that there is no fee for last resort receivership, where the Public Guardianship Office itself manages the affairs of a client directly. I seek reassurance that that will not undermine the discretion of the court in choosing a receiver as the court is obliged by statute to act in the best interests of the client.
	Although the Public Guardianship Office is self-financing, cross-subsidisation between clients still exists. Contested enduring power of attorney cases are being funded by the larger fees for uncontested cases, which on average cost £140, which is £80 less than the new fee level. A wider issue that may be of even greater importance is the fact that legal aid is not available for the Court of Protection. That is despite the fact that it is available in all other cases where a decision has to be made in the best personal interests of a person who lacks capacity, such as mental health tribunals and Children Act proceedings. The Government need to consider whether legal aid should be available for Court of Protection cases.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister can provide an explanation for why the statutory instrument has been implemented so quickly and how the other place was misled. Perhaps she will reassure the House that the impact of the new fee levels will be monitored; that the new remission scheme will be quickly implemented and back-dated to 17th April; and, in the longer term, that the continuing reforms to the Public Guardianship Office will work for the benefit of people of all ages who are the most frail and vulnerable in our society. If the Minister is unable to give the House clear assurances, the House should annul the statutory instrument. I beg to move the humble Address and hope that it has the support of noble Lords from all sides of the House.
	Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules laid before the House on 27th March be annulled (S.I. 2002/832).—(Baroness Greengross.)

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in speaking to the prayer of the noble Baroness I seek permission to speak to my own. I am not against increased fees as such, and I am pleased that the power of waiver remains to deal with hardship cases, although I share the observation of the noble Baroness in that I would prefer to see a more specific scheme relating hardship to concession. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter.
	My purpose in speaking in the debate is to ensure that the money yielded by the fees is spent in guaranteeing, through effective supervision, that patients are properly cared for by their respective receivers.
	What is the general supervisory scheme? I take that to have been set out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a statement that he made on 29th March 2001. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I quote extensively from it. In paragraph 3 of the statement the Lord Chancellor said:
	"The Public Guardianship Office is committed to making a difference to its clients. It will not be remote: it will work in partnership with Receivers, and others, to protect and manage the financial affairs of some of the most vulnerable members of society. The Public Guardianship Office will deliver better customer service, and will be more accessible to its clients. For Receivers, this will mean a vastly improved advice and information system, available locally wherever possible—a service which supports as well as monitors. It will be a personalised service, designed to meet the needs of individuals. The staff of the Public Guardianship Office will be fully trained, effectively led and managed, and equipped with the tools to do a difficult job in a modern environment".
	In the following paragraph the noble and learned Lord continued:
	"This Framework Document sets the framework in which the Public Guardianship Office will operate . . . It also sets out the Public Guardianship Office's responsibilities to all those who use its services and its ultimate accountability to me".
	The noble and learned Lord then stated:
	"The creation of the Public Guardianship Office is part of a radical programme of change. The last twelve months of change and preparation has been only a beginning. I look now to the Chief Executive and the staff of the Public Guardianship Office to focus their efforts on building a genuinely new organisation that can deliver radically improved services".
	As the Lord Chancellor then went on to say, these are "challenging targets" for the office.
	The latter brings me to my first line of questioning to the noble Baroness the Minister. In that statement, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is, in effect, saying that the buck stops with him. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will be able to tell your Lordships how the Lord Chancellor's Department will be monitoring the performance of the Public Guardianship Office. Can she say what resources in the noble and learned Lord's department will be devoted to that task? For example, will there be a specific unit to fulfil the heavy burden that the noble and learned Lord has placed upon himself, or will specific individuals be asked to undertake certain tasks?
	Further, can the noble Baroness say how regularly the Lord Chancellor's Department will investigate the affairs, not only of the office as a receiver but also of the disparate receivers that it is the ambition of the PGO to appoint? What I am seeking to establish is: how will the hierarchy of responsibility work through as the system develops?
	How, indeed, is the system working so far? I have been reading a document produced by the Public Guardianship Office called Reaching Out. There is an article on the front page of the February 2002 edition written by Mr David Lye, who is the chief executive of the office. Under the general heading of "Other Challenges", he says:
	"I know from the letters, emails and telephone calls I have received from some of you, that some areas of our service have not been satisfactory recently . . . I know that recently you have been most frustrated by our poor communication and for this I offer sincere apologies. A number of factors have affected our ability to respond to your queries and complaints in the usual way. Working from two sites . . . has delayed our postal services. We introduced a new telephone system at the same time; and of course we physically moved office. At the same time, casework staff moved into new team working practices and such change inevitably reveals some teething problems".
	I mean no disrespect to Mr Lye—he is the third chief executive officer in the Public Guardianship Office within the past year—in wondering whether his analysis really gets to grips with the fundamental problems faced by the office.
	As a result of my familiarity with a recent and difficult case—that of Miss Elizabeth Laurence—I have identified at least two of those fundamental problems. The first concerns the way in which cases are dealt with by the staff. As far as Miss Laurence is concerned, there have been about 90 separate telephone or written communications in the past two years between the Public Guardianship Office and Miss Laurence's trustees or her cousin, Lord Iliffe. Those communications have been dealt with by no fewer than 20 members of staff. I recognise that there are occasions when individuals are away on holiday, or when specific technical tasks are undertaken by particular individuals. However, if the confidence of the office is to be established in the minds of its clients, it is absolutely vital that one specific person should have overall responsibility for each patient.
	Having reached that conclusion, and bearing in mind Mr Lye's article in Reaching Out, I was a little concerned to read that the office is now thinking of shifting from an individual caseworker scheme to a team caseworker scheme; in other words, it will be a team of staff and not an individual member of staff who will be responsible for a particular case. I can understand why different technical skills may be needed in some cases. However, if an individual is not specifically tasked with ultimate and overall responsibility for a patient, the process of accountability in the office will be extremely difficult to establish. I should be most grateful if the Minister could reflect on that point when she replies.
	The second fundamental problem concerns accounting. As I understand the present situation, it is not possible to extract any financial information from the PGO about particular patients without an order of the Court of Protection. Yet very large sums of money—much of it trust money—are handed over to receivers who have no obligation to account to anybody for anything. Fortunately, in the case of Miss Laurence, such an order has been forthcoming from the court. A firm of independent accountants has now been charged with the task of investigating inconsistencies between payments in by trustees and the PGO recorded receipts, inconsistencies which, in one case, go back 12 years. I should like, incidentally, to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for ensuring that that step was taken.
	Had there been a proper and regular system of accounting and auditing, none of that particular and special investigation would have been necessary. I shall, therefore, be most interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say about proposed accounting plans for the future. In my submission, this issue is especially important when your Lordships take into account the aspiration of the Public Guardianship Office to devolve more and more of its receiver responsibilities on family members, other individuals, professionals, groups of trustees, and so on. As I understand it, the PGO increasingly aspires to supervise the supervisors. That is an admirable aspiration, as long as the PGO has established a system of supervision that can really call to account the receiver outside the office.
	In that regard, I was somewhat surprised at the rather low fee that the Public Guardianship Office intends to charge in relation to the operation of receiverships by individuals other than the chief executive. Unless all these individual receivers are properly called to account on a regular basis, there is enough evidence to demonstrate that bad practices—even, on occasions, fraudulent practices—are likely to find their way into the system. Thus all the aspirations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and of the Minister, will be set at nothing.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of both prayers. I agree with every word that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I also agree with the call from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there should be the best possible management practices within the Public Guardianship Office.
	I went to my family solicitor a few years ago to make a new will. While I was instructing him on how to prepare the will, he asked me if I was minded to prepare an enduring power of attorney. I was a little offended at first blush, as I was then in what would politely be described as the "very early fifties". He explained to me that, these days, it was part of the everyday kit for solicitors advising clients of whatever age on the making of wills. The reason for that is obvious: people live much longer. Many people survive well into their late 80s and, for a large number, into their 90s. If they create an enduring power of attorney, they have a useful and practical opportunity to ensure that the people whom they choose—people whom they trust—will manage their affairs in the event of serious incapacity.
	The result of having an increasingly ageing population is that the number of enduring powers of attorney is increasing fast, particularly as solicitors give the sort of responsible advice that was given to me. In almost every instance, enduring powers of attorney work well. As it happens, my wife exercised an enduring power of attorney over an elderly aunt who had become mentally incapacitated. As a result of hard work under the power of attorney, my wife was able to ensure that her aunt's assets were maintained and that her aunt had the highest possible quality of life consistent with her incapacitating condition. That fulfilled the aspirations of the aunt before she became incapacitated.
	Registration of enduring powers of attorney is not compulsory. I have no idea what proportion of EPAs is not registered; I suspect that it is a large majority. One of the reasons why they have not been registered is that people have been put off even by the previous fee that was charged. Registration is important. It gives a degree of protection against fraud, and the discipline of registration itself—the knowledge that an enduring power of attorney has been registered—will discourage any temptation of fraud. Registration is in the public interest. As I understand it, government policy is that registration should take place in as many cases as possible. I should welcome confirmation of that.
	I should not complain for one moment if the registration fee were increased by a sum that reflected the cost of living or even if the fee took into account something that was demonstrable and specific, such as an increase in the cost of processing the forms. The registration of EPAs is a modest administrative exercise; it cannot cost more than a few pounds. The increase from £75 to £220 for registration—a staggering increase of 300 per cent—cannot possibly reflect an increase in costs. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. It looks awfully like a punitive form of tax collection, in which enduring powers of attorney are an easy target.
	Whether it is right or wrong and even if the Government can demonstrate that an increase is necessary to meet the costs of the registration and administration of powers of attorney, the matter must be subject to an element of public interest consideration, for the reasons given earlier. An increase to £220—a significant cost for people making wills that certainly exceeds the cost of many wills by some distance—will discourage people from securing the power of attorney for when they become vulnerable. It must be in the public interest to ensure early registration, so that the person who creates the power of attorney has a hand in the process. He or she will want to know that it has been registered, so that there is full protection. The increase in the fee for registering powers of attorney will discourage that.
	It would be more convincing if the Government had said anything that demonstrated an improvement in the monitoring arrangements for powers of attorney. We return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. We have not been told a single thing about any improvement in monitoring arrangements. It would be helpful to know how many extra staff will be employed in monitoring powers of attorney. How many more investigations will there be into the use of the powers?
	It is also surprising that there was so little consultation, prior to the increase, with those who might have had something constructive to offer, such as the Law Society, whose members are involved in the great majority of cases involving enduring powers of attorney, the major charities and other professional groups. I hope that I will be corrected about this, but I understand that there was limited consultation even with the Public Guardianship Office's consultative forum, which was set up for the specific purpose of being consulted on such issues.
	My other point relates to receivership. Under the previous arrangements, there was a standard fee of £1,750 per annum for the administration of receiverships. One of the reforms that flowed from the quinquennial review of the PGO was the use of external receivers. Those receivers are drawn from a panel of professional receivers who are mostly—not exclusively—solicitors. Some of the receiverships cost less than £1,750; some cost a great deal more. The flat-fee arrangement has compensated for the existence of dearer and cheaper receiverships. That is a fair, rounded system.
	The PGO no longer charges fees, but it has retained some receiverships of last resort. It was always recognised that there would be a residual number of cases—200 or 300—in which the Public Guardianship Office would act as the receiver of last resort. They might include, for example, cases of fraud by a family member or in which the patient is particularly violent or demanding. Under the new arrangements, that service is provided free of charge by the PGO, subsidised wholly by the taxpayer. However, a choice must be made by the PGO as to whether it is a receivership of last resort or one that will be put out to a member of the panel. There will be many marginal cases. What will be the effect in those marginal cases?
	Cases that fall on the non-residual side of the line must pay the full charges of the professionals who are involved in the receivership. In some cases, that could run to several thousand pounds a year. Those in the residual category will not have to pay. That creates a serious problem for the Public Guardianship Office. How can it justify the appointment of a panel receiver as being for the benefit of a patient when the panel receiver will charge several thousand pounds, even though the in-house provision is entirely free? How can the Master of the Court of Protection give a serious and reasonable answer to a member of the public who has in his hands the interests of a patient and says, "I want this to be a residual case because I won't have to pay for it"? The cost of a panel receiver will be prohibitive.
	That puts the Court of Protection in a difficult situation and makes something of a mockery of the PGO's panel receiver system. I do not believe that that point has been fully considered. If it has, I should welcome the Government's response to why they have allowed such an anomalous situation to arise.
	The regulations have been introduced in haste and without proper consultation. It would be better if they were withdrawn, so that consultation could take place in the normal way. That way, we could return to the matter in due course with more balanced regulations.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for raising this issue. A number of noble Lords have raised many important questions. The noble Baroness was right to say that the Public Guardianship Office plays a crucial role in the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in society—people who suffer from mental incapacity. Its clients include people who suffer from mental illness, people who have learning disabilities, people who have suffered brain damage and elderly people who suffer the effects of dementia.
	These are people who are easily forgotten or sidelined. They need champions. For many years, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has been their champion through her work with Age Concern and other organisations. Perhaps I may say also that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, have both demonstrated that they too share concerns about these vulnerable people in our society. I take the remarks made by all noble Lords very much in the spirit that they were meant and I shall respond as fully as I can. I appreciate the concerns that these rules have given rise to, and I shall try to answer as many of the points as I can before the close of today's debate. However, if I do not respond to all of them, I hope that noble Lords will write to me. I shall then seek to give a fuller response.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked for an explanation of how the fees arose. I am happy to give that explanation, which I hope will also be to the elucidation of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Before doing so, however, I think that it is important to explain the principle that we followed in setting the new fees.
	We wanted to ensure that we act in line with the findings of the Public Accounts Committee in its 1999 inquiry into the affairs of the Public Trust Office which, as noble Lords will recall, was the predecessor body of the Public Guardianship Office. The PAC was very critical of the way in which the costs of services to some clients were being cross-subsidised through higher fees being charged to other clients.
	It has been the policy of successive governments that people should pay for the services they use and that those who cannot afford to pay should be subsidised. Taking this important principle together with the criticisms of the PAC, we have devised these new rules to reflect more accurately the cost of services used by clients and to support the provision of better services to them, based on a system which is fairer to all.
	The new fees fulfil those aims. They ensure that the fees reflect the costs. They eliminate cross-subsidy between groups of clients and they will allow the PGO to develop and improve its services. Most important, they contain improved protections, support and better value for poorer clients.
	Quite naturally, noble Lords have focused on where the fees have increased. I should like to respond to those concerns but, first, I wish to place on the record that we have reduced some fees. For protection cases, the commencement fee, which covers the cost of processing a first application to the court, has been reduced from £230 to £65. In Court of Protection cases, where clients have net assets below £16,000, their representative can be given authority to manage a client's finances under a "short order", and will have to pay only the £65 fee. That is one example of the way in which the new fees will help the poorest clients of the PGO. Previously they would have paid £230, the same amount as for more complex applications. That higher fee partly subsidised users of other PGO services, in particular enduring power of attorney clients, to whom I shall turn later in my remarks.
	Officers of the Court of Protection and the PGO have also developed new guidelines for remission of fees which are both more generous and wide-ranging in their scope and which will be more widely publicised than in the past. They have consulted the main stakeholders, bodies such as Age Concern, the Alzheimer's Disease Society, Action on Elder Abuse, MIND and the Law Society. The new remissions scheme reflects their views. For example, the guidelines increase the capital limit for remission of all fees from £3,000 to £11,750, an increase of almost 300 per cent.
	There are two other important aspects of the remissions scheme to which I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords. First, the increase in enduring power of attorney registration fees has caused concern, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Under the revised remissions guidelines, clients with assets of less than £16,000 will be treated in the same way as "short order" protection clients. They will pay a registration fee of only £65; that is another illustration of how the fees policy will protect the PGO's poorest clients.
	I should like to remind noble Lords what the full fee for registration of an enduring power of attorney covers because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, demonstrated in his speech, there does not seem to be much clarity on that point. The fee of £220 covers the cost of registration, handling any disputes or technical problems and correspondence during or after registration, helping and advising attorneys or their legal representatives, investigating allegations of financial abuse against the donor and cancelling registration on the death of the donor. The registration fee covers that work over the lifetime of the case. It is not for a simple act of registration of a document, as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, thought or suggested. I hope that noble Lords will agree that a fee of £220 over such a period represents incredibly good value.
	Finally, the Public Guardianship Office will publicise its remissions guidelines and will incorporate them in a review process if a client believes that the PGO has failed to apply the scheme properly. I hope that that will be of reassurance to the noble Baroness. The PGO will retain the discretion to remit fees for clients who do not meet the set criteria if it judges that they would suffer hardship as a result of having to pay fees.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, in particular as my question will take her back to her last but one sentence. Are figures available to illustrate the average cost per enduring power of attorney of registration and all the other processes which she mentioned in her remarks?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in setting the fee, an assessment was made in relation to how much are the real costs. I do not have that information to hand, but certainly if the noble Lord wishes to write to me, I shall do my best to satisfy his interest in that regard.
	It may be helpful if I give an example of the exercise of the discretion. Mr A is a client of the PGO. He lives with his wife in a house that they own. His income and capital exceed the minima that would automatically qualify for remission but his expenses are also significant. He receives remission on the ground that if he did not he and his wife would be forced to sell their house to raise capital. I am happy to confirm that the PGO will notify all those who have made applications since the order came into being advising them of the remissions procedure that is now available. Furthermore, the PGO is already taking steps to ensure that the office itself raises these issues with those whom it believes may be entitled to such remission. We are taking proactive steps in that regard.
	Before going on to respond to some of the specific points that have been raised, I wish to cite one more example of how the new fees scheme will protect the PGO's poorest clients. The difficulties of the Public Trust Office were exposed to all by the PAC report published in 1999. One of the actions that we have taken since then was to seek to devolve the PGO's in-house receivership work to panel receivers, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile; they are professionals, usually solicitors, who are better able to provide a more local and professional service. However, some in-house receivership clients remain. These tend typically to be people who have no one to act as receiver for them or there are complexities which make them resource-intensive to manage. The majority will fall below the £16,000 capital threshold.
	Those cases involve liaison with other agencies which are stakeholders in the care of our most vulnerable clients and tend to require a more senior grade of staff to manage them. The cost is estimated at £2,535 per annum per case. The PGO expects to be left with about 50 cases where clients would not be exempt fees on grounds of hardship under the current fees instrument. In most of those cases, the clients are very elderly or very ill and regrettably are unlikely to survive long.
	Given the complexities and the opportunity costs involved in serving this small number of clients, the full cost in the very few cases where fees would normally be payable, the charges to receivership clients would have been £665 for the first year fee; £2,535 for the annual administration fee; and £1,390 for the winding-up-fee, compared with £500, £205 and £360 in protection cases involving private receivers. This would clearly be unacceptably high.
	In view of the nature of the remaining client base and the impact of introducing steep increases in fees for a very small number of the PGO's most vulnerable clients, we will subsidise those clients' fees, as the noble Lord indicated. The subsidy will be from government funds rather than a cross-subsidy from other PGO clients. We believe that that system will work and work well.
	I turn to some of the specific points raised. The noble Baroness raised the issue of parliamentary time and consultation. There have been suggestions that there was insufficient time for consultation regarding the rules laid before a Recess. As regards laying the rules, we have complied with the necessary procedures. The new rules were laid before Parliament on 27th March and came into force on 17th April. That was in accordance with the normal 21-day rule for this type of secondary legislation.
	I stress that such measures have been taken in accordance with the normal procedure. However, I accept the concern that the laying of the regulations coincided with Easter. That was a regrettable result of the proximity of Easter to the financial year-end.
	I have already apologised for the fact that the Answer given in the other place appears to have been inaccurate. It was certainly accurate and correct when it was written. Unfortunately, publication was delayed because of the Easter Recess, and therein lies the difficulty.
	The noble Baroness also asked when the next fee increase would be. We do not know the date of that but the PGO reviews its fees every year and fees may go up or down depending on the cost of the service. However, we are hopeful that for the next two or three years fees will need to increase only in line with inflation. The PGO will also be making efficiency improvements which we hope will exert downward pressure on costs.
	I turn to the two major issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. They appear to be the issues arising out of the change in the team working and also the supervision by the PGO of the panel of receivers. The Lord Chancellor's Department has an agency-monitoring unit. It monitors on a day-to-day basis. There is a ministerial advisory board which my colleague in the Lord Chancellor's Department, Miss Winterton, chairs. It meets quarterly to review performance and the PGO produces annual reports setting out that performance. Therefore, there is a robust scheme for monitoring.
	In relation to the change that has taken place from case working to team working, we entirely understand the attraction of having a named caseworker. Having a named caseworker worked well in many cases but by no means all. In some cases, the client and the caseworker did not work well together. Individual case working meant that when a member of staff was away or left there was a risk of lack of continuity.
	Finally, individual case working was not the best way to develop consistency of practice. The growth in the number of cases with which the PGO deals also necessitated a change. Team working offers the opportunity to develop better continuity and consistency, but I sympathise with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I can say to him that the issue will be kept under review and the PGO is determined to have the most efficacious means of delivering well targeted help and support to the people whom it serves. Therefore, the process which we now have in place will continue unless and until such time as change seems to be indicated.
	As regards supervision by the PGO, I want to reassure the House that as a result of the concerns expressed the panel receivers work under a more structured supervisory framework. They agree a service level agreement with the PGO at the start of their appointment to the panel, which includes an outlying framework of the level of service the clients can expect. In addition, they are subject to the same supervision as other professional receivers and the PGO reviews their annual accounts as well as the requirement on the panel receiver to seek specific court authority for a number of actions such as sale or purchase of property. The court and the PGO continue to ensure that clients whose affairs are managed by panel receivers receive an appropriate level of protection.
	When the PGO hands over cases to panel receivers, they are accompanied by a brief review of the client, details of income arrangements, expenditure projection, property details, investment holdings, an up-to-date account and other relevant information. Therefore, the PGO aims to ensure that cases which transfer to panel receivers are in good order for panel receivers to manage them in the future.
	I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on the points raised today. If, having considered what has been said, noble Lords feel that there are further and other matters which need to be explored, I shall be happy to respond. I want to re-emphasise that those rules offer the opportunity for clients of the PGO to be charged as fairly as possible for the services offered by that organisation and that the new fees recognise the need to protect the finances of the poorest and they do that. The PGO will continue to seek every opportunity in the future to consult with the relevant organisations to ensure that any policy affecting fees, such as remission and fee levels, continues to reflect a just system of assessment of each individual circumstance. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will find themselves content.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am grateful in particular for her obvious commitment to fairness; a more tailored service to meet clients' individual needs; to a review process; and to notify everyone who may not have been aware of the new remission scheme and of subsidy schemes in particular circumstances.
	Noble Lords have spoken from all sides of the House and I hope that we shall soon have the opportunity again to debate such vital people-centred issues. It is easy to see the debate as about an organisation, the Public Guardianship Office, but it is really about people with mental incapacity. We really must be sure that they are always in the forefront of any such discussion.
	This House is now aware that there has been a great deal of concern about the Public Guardianship Office. The reforms and changes, including changes to fees and to how we look after those with a mental incapacity, must be better monitored. I hope that this debate will have played a small part in making sure that this is so. I was pleased to see the explanation of the remission scheme which appeared on the website today.
	On this occasion I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. To have done so might have meant that I would need the protection of the master myself. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. No doubt inadvertently, she said nothing about improved accounting procedures. Perhaps she will be kind enough to write to me on that matter at a later date. In the mean time, I do not intend to move my Motion for an humble Address.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.31 until 8.36 p.m.]

Education Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 23.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 113:
	Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
	"(1A) Nothing in this Chapter shall provide for the character of a school to be changed as a result of federation.
	(1B) In subsection (1A) "character" shall be defined as including admissions arrangements; religious character; single sex or co-educational policy; or the status of a school as a foundation, voluntary aided or community school or academy."

Baroness Blatch: I am responding now to the Minister's reply to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114.
	I am largely reassured by much of what the noble Baroness said in regard to Amendment No. 113. As I understand it, there is absolutely no way in which the nature, ethos or character of a school can be changed as a result of belonging to a federation. Even if a governing body thought it was a good idea and wished to relinquish its ethos as part of joining a federation, there is a procedure that it would have to go through in the normal course of events to change the character of the school. So I am reassured about that.
	I do not know if something along those lines will appear in regulations or where it will be stated. There may be some schools which will believe that that is one way of changing the ethos of a school—for example, where there is a build-up of people of the same mind as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who would like to relinquish the religious character of a school. It is important, therefore, to have that reassurance, but I wonder whether it will be built into the statute.
	I cannot help feeling quite vexed about the example given by the noble Baroness of infant and junior schools. Certainly I have been present when infant and junior schools have merged and observed the pain and anxiety that it caused to the schools. But almost always it was the right thing to do. As mixed junior and infant schools, they became better for being one school rather than two.
	This House fought very strongly, and defeated the Government by one vote only, for a little church school that had been there for a couple of hundred years which wished to keep its separate infant and junior school governing bodies. It went to another place, where that decision was brutally overturned, and we lost that—and here we are now saying that it is a jolly good thing to come together as a federated school under one governing body. I am sorry; it was the other way round. It is no comfort to that school.
	We had a part debate about pre-Taylor groups. I tried quickly to write down the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said:
	"I have no reason to share the anxieties of the noble Baroness, as I read the Bill".
	I want to believe the noble Lord—I hope he is absolutely right—because then I need not worry about some of the points that I raised.
	As the first federations start to be formed, some schools will start to feel pressure. In an area where there are half a dozen schools, of which three or four come together, the other schools may feel pressure to become part of the federation. My worry is that, so far as I know, there is no limit on the number of schools that can come together as a federation—unless a figure is to be included in the regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister could answer that point when she replies to the other matters that I want to raise.
	If the number is too high, the schools lose something. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who raised the point that a school gets a great deal of comfort from knowing that on a daily basis governors are taking an interest in it and passing through on both an informal and a formal basis. They become known not only to the children and the parents but to the teachers and staff. The smaller the school, the more important that is. That will not be the case.
	In urban areas the proximity of schools is manageable but in rural areas the distance between schools is considerable. It is possible that from one term to the next schools may not even know who the governors are and will not see them. This is an important point to be taken into account.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who is not in his place, talked about schools themselves having some governing body functions and the overarching single governing body having other functions. I do not believe that such an idea is contained in the legislation or that that is a proper reading of it. However, there is a very good argument for subsidiarity; namely, that some things are better done at school level than by the governing body overall. I do not know whether that will be a consideration.
	As regards the regulations that will be produced under Clause 23(4), many of the areas of concern are covered, but perhaps I may refer to one in particular. I do not believe that there is a trial period for a school entering a federation. The formation of a federation is in itself something of a leap in the dark for some schools. What looks good on paper may not turn out in practice to be what they hope for. I do not know whether a trial period has been considered.
	Secondly, although the regulations will cover a governing body leaving a federation, and even the dissolution of the federation itself, will there be a fixed period before the end of which a school will not be able to reverse its decision? A school having opted in to a federation, what will the procedure for opting out if it feels that too much of its autonomy has been compromised and that the federation has not delivered what it hoped for?
	I believe that the Minister covered my final point, but perhaps I may check it again. To give an example, if we take a foundation school, a voluntary aided school, a community school and possibly a maintained special school, not only are they different in nature—and we have dealt with the nature, characteristics and ethos of a school—they also have very different governing body responsibilities. For example, in the case of a foundation school, the school itself, not the LEA, is responsible for staffing. I understood the Minister to say that all of that is unaffected by these provisions—that a foundation school will continue to appoint its own staff, that the LEA will continue to be the employer of the staff in a community school. I understood her to say that those areas are completely unaffected and that the governing body will have to take into account that for each school a different set of rules operates in terms of staffing and certain procedures.
	Earlier, I raised a point with the right reverend Prelate about possible tensions between diocese and faith schools. We chatted informally about the matter following our debates in Committee. I take his point that this is more of an issue for Roman Catholic schools than it is for Anglican schools; but it needs to be addressed. To my knowledge, the diocesan authorities have more of a practical, almost day-to-day input into the running of a Catholic voluntary aided school than Anglican dioceses do into their schools. That is another constitutional point that will need to be thought through in terms of federation.
	Before I decide what to do about the amendment, I should be grateful if the Minister would touch on some of those points. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My amendment is grouped with this one; therefore, it is appropriate that I should reply before the Minister speaks again.
	I was attempting to be helpful to the Minister. There are deep issues as regards the relationship of schools within a federation which are of a different character and have a different foundation. We are talking in the case of voluntary aided Church schools—and, I suspect, all voluntary aided schools whatever their background—about premises which are owned for a particular purpose by the trustees. I find it difficult to get my mind around the arrangements that pertain for the appointment of staff in individual schools. I do not know how the provisions will be exercised by an overarching governing body involving many people unless there are specific directions in the legislation. It is not only the foundation governors who appoint staff in a voluntary aided school; it is the whole governing body, in which the foundation governors are the majority. So some real issues arise.
	If this idea is promoted as a possible way forward—and I genuinely wanted to attempt to do that—engagement with the diocese could be a lever for bringing this about rather than, as it has been perceived, a veto to prevent it happening.
	In her response, the Minister did not give me the Ascension Day gift that I was looking for. However, she made some very helpful comments which I shall want to reflect on. We may need to return to this matter on Report.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask for clarification on one point. There has been a great deal of discussion on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the right reverend Prelate on the concept of a confederation of schools, a group of schools coming together. However, the conception has not been that on such occasions—as is quite clear from the Bill—they would be run by a single governing board. Am I right in thinking that the Bill as drafted does not conceive of a federation where each individual school could retain its own governing board and there would be an overarching governing board?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We are now at the stage of "replying to the replying". In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, no, we do not see that as the way forward, for the reasons I gave earlier. That would be an extra layer rather than a provision that was helpful. As I said earlier, there are many ways in which schools can collaborate without going that far.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made a point about a trial period. We have not included such a provision—partly because we are working on the principle that schools will deliberate and probably set up ways of working together under other options as a method of moving towards federation. In other words, I imagine that schools will not leap into federation.
	That said, we want to make sure that schools that do enter a federation can exit from it or that the federation can be dissolved. We have not yet considered any period of time during which schools must stay in a federation, although it may be a matter that the noble Baroness will want to press later. We are looking at what triggers would enable a federation to be dissolved. We shall examine that carefully. So if, for example, in a federation of three schools members of one school decided that the federation was not for them and felt that they would be better off under different arrangements, they could come to the federated governing body, having discussed the matter within the school, probably having consulted with the parents and having put forward the proposal that they should remove themselves from it. We shall set in train a mechanism that will enable that to be an informal process and a formal process.
	If it would be helpful to the noble Baroness, I am happy to write to her setting out our thoughts on the matter. An exit strategy will be laid out so that schools are clear that they can leave a federation but providing some flexibility for them to be sure that it fits their circumstances.
	We have said that up to five schools can federate. If more than five schools wanted to do so, it would be an exception that could be granted only by special consent of the Secretary of State. We do not want to go back to the time when there were 10 or 20 schools under one federation; nor indeed do we want to make it impossible for governors to stay in touch with a school. But we recognise that there are already many governors who are governors of more than one school and who perform those functions very effectively. We expect schools to take that on board.
	I am sorry that I did not give the right reverend Prelate an Ascension Day gift. I rather hoped that I had. We have said that the diocesan authorities are very important. We expect governing bodies to consult them. We are simply saying that the decision must be made by the governing bodies. Local education authorities and diocesan authorities are important players, particularly with regard to the instrument of government, but the ultimate responsibility belongs to the governing body.

Baroness Blatch: Would the powers of a voluntary aided faith school, for example, be vested in the new, all-embracing governing body? On a linked point, sub-paragraph (iii) in my Amendment No. 114 suggests that the distinctive nature of each school should be represented on the governing body. In other words, if there are two or more faith or specialist schools—even up to five—coming together, the distinctive aspect of each of those schools should be represented on the governing body. I am not sure whether the Minister covered that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I accept that this is a complex procedure, particularly when dealing with schools of different faiths or different kinds of school. The situation is more straightforward if two or three community schools come together. I recognise that we have to look at the detail.
	Admissions is an important issue. We imagine that a governing body would propose an admissions procedure that would enable there to be a majority on the panel, however it was done, that would represent the interests of the school for which that admissions procedure applied. That would help the new governing body determine its numbers and membership to ensure that that is built in on issues for which it is responsible as the employer of staff or for admissions procedures and appeals if need be.
	All that would have to be demonstrated in the way in which the federated governing body came together to enable that to happen. We would be keen to ensure that that could happen so that there was a procedure for those schools to be represented on the governing body and to be enabled in doing so to fulfil their obligations as admissions authority, employer and so on.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 14, line 30, at end insert ", and
	(c) have collectively and individually the same responsibilities towards disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs as any individual school."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has added his name to the amendment, apologises for not being here this evening. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the individual schools within a federation have the same SEN and disability responsibilities as they would have if they were not federated.
	In the discussions that we have had about the concept of federation, there are obviously some rather exciting possibilities for special needs provision. When we discussed what is now the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, we talked about the possibility of special schools becoming a resource for a group of schools. That aspect of involvement in a federation is a positive way of looking at a federation. I certainly recognise that some advantages can be gained from that.
	However, there are also some concerns about working in federated arrangements within the Bill. Above all, there is a danger of the issue falling between two stools. Everybody might think that someone else has responsibility for the issue.
	The amendments respond to those concerns. There is already sometimes confusion between the responsibilities of schools and those of local education authorities on special educational needs. Parents who are concerned about their child's progress are often pointed in the direction of the local education authority for additional support through a statement, but when they approach the local education authority they are often told that the responsibility really lies back at the child's school. That confusion could be further exacerbated by the introduction of yet another level of responsibility—the federation. When schools choose to federate, it needs to be clear to whom the parents should turn when they are concerned about their child's progress or how their child's special educational needs are to be met.
	Amendment No. 115 would ensure that a federated school and the individual schools within the federation had the same SEN and disability responsibilities as they had when they were not federated. In effect, responsibilities would be held locally by the individual schools and across all schools in the federation.
	Amendment No. 118 provides a model of how the federation might apportion responsibilities in respect of special educational needs policy requirements. Some elements of the SEN policy could sensibly be maintained at the level of individual schools, but more strategic aspects of the policy might more appropriately be held at the level of the federation—for example, the way in which SEN provision is reviewed and developed might be across all the schools in the federation rather than just at the individual school level. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Rix, I should like to say a word in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. There are enough problems with children's special educational needs. It is very important that parents are clear about where to turn for advice. Parents are not clear at the moment about the division of responsibilities. It would be good to make the situation clearer. I hope that the Minister can give a positive response.

Lord Peston: I do not want to say anything negative about special educational needs, especially in this Chamber. As your Lordships know, I am firm believer in the idea of passing a general special needs amendment before we consider any Bill, covering any thoughts that anyone has on special educational needs so that we do not need to debate the subject further.
	I am concerned about a deeper point. My interpretation of this part of the Bill is that federations will be what are called technically super-additive—that is, good will come out of them and the best of the constituents will become characteristic of the whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, appears to assume the reverse—that this will be a recipe for the worst in every one of the members of the confederation becoming the characteristic. That is a deep divide.
	I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on whether she may be mistaken. Maybe the point is that schools will get together and share all the good or best things that they do. Special educational needs provision is as good an example as I can think of. One of those schools will be much better at it than others and will set higher standards. That will become the characteristic of all the schools. That is one reason why we ought to support the proposals and see the positive side, not just with special educational needs but with almost anything else that I can think of.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said earlier that people who do not care for religion will take over. If she could tell me how to do that, I would be the first to put it into practice, but I cannot remotely think where her fears come from. If she knows how, posting the information on her website or e-mailing it to me would be all that I need and I would be in there like a flash.
	My main point is simply that this is a chance for the best to take over. That is the point of it. We do not need amendments such as this one or anything else that we can think of in this area that needs protecting. We need to say that we want the idea to work.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was supporting the notion of having an all-embracing statement about special educational needs in the Bill.

Lord Peston: No, I was not. My whole point is that I am totally committed to special educational needs provision, but over the years I have found it rather tedious that there are certain topics on which we are always asked to have special general statements. Special educational needs is one. Wales is another—it gets whole sections of Bills devoted to it. Occasionally, those who press for these things ought to accept the good faith of a number of us who are totally committed to doing the best things. I cannot say a word for the Government, because I have no responsibility for them, but I have—this is not my favourite word—faith that occasionally the good will out. We do not need a general statement on SEN or any of the other pressure group issues that dominate the House. That is my general position.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that way. I refer to my disappointment when we discussed the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 during its passage through this House. I believe that that applied to most of us who were involved in that discussion. I had been involved in the minutiae of the 1993 and 1996 Bills which contained large sections devoted to children with special educational needs. However, in 2001 we discovered that the situation was not working on the ground and that the quality of statements and their detail and content left a great deal to be desired. There were inadequacies as regards the rights of parents to have the appropriate provision made for their children and the quality of diagnosis of children with special educational needs. I refer to the increasing number of children with difficult to detect conditions such as autism and Asperger's syndrome. Many other conditions were not being detected at an early stage and young people were drifting through school and developing behavioural problems. Some were withdrawn from school. A number of problems exist in that area and we have not yet got the matter right.
	It seems to me that one way of keeping this matter at the front of the agenda is, rather than table amendments on the subject as we progress through the Bill—as we are all trying to do at the moment—to make a statement that there is a group of children with special educational needs who must not be lost in the understandable wish to raise standards for all children. The phrase "all children" includes children with special educational needs. A neater and more profound way to deal with the matter is to have a portmanteau statement in the Bill. It is a long and disparate Bill with many different objectives such as setting up companies, forming federations and curricular changes. All we are saying is that there could be a statement at the beginning of the Bill to the effect that nothing in the Bill will have the effect of reducing or in any way marring the provision of education to meet the needs of children with special educational needs. I believe that that would be one way to cope with the matter rather than having this debate.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, cares as passionately about education as everyone else in the Chamber and has done so for many, many years, but I refer to what is almost a war of attrition with regard to everyone concerned with the delivery of services to children with special educational needs. There is still more that can be done. It is a question of making sure that the Bill recognises that. There is not a mention of special needs in the Bill from beginning to end. It is our mission to do something about that before the Bill returns to another place.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I, for one, am enormously grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, moved the amendment as I was in danger of participating in the debate so late in the evening that the sobriquet "something of the night about him" was beginning to become appropriate. Therefore, I am rather glad of the opportunity to be on my feet at the extraordinarily early hour of 9 p.m.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Peston that he may not be able to speak for the Government but he is quite capable of taking the Government's best lines and using them before we get the chance to deploy them ourselves. What he says is absolutely right; namely, we have great sympathy with the motivation behind the amendments we are discussing as they share our concern to ensure that the best possible provision is made for students with special educational needs.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just reminded us, we spent many arduous months and expended a considerable amount of intellectual energy in seeking to improve provision for special educational needs during the passage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Therefore, it is scarcely likely that the Government would bring forward a measure which in any way, shape or form threatened that broad objective of an inclusive agenda in which special educational needs must play the fullest possible part. On that basis I seek to reassure the Committee.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for expressing more graphically and more accurately than I the fact that what we hope to achieve through federation—as I believe the right reverend Prelate indicated in his welcome of the concept—is a framework within which best practice can be deployed and developed. I make the obvious point that the inevitable pooling of resources which federation implies also indicates that such resources can potentially be operated more effectively within such a framework. There is certainly likely to be expertise in a group of schools coming together in a federation which can be made available to students across the federation. At the present time it is more difficult to release that expertise within the framework of each individual school.
	I understand and greatly respect the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made. She indicated that we ought to be able to address the issue of special educational needs in a general portmanteau statement. However, the only thing I would say to her in this regard—mistress of detail that she is—is how difficult it is to produce such a framework without laying ourselves open to a whole range of potential difficulties, not least that of judicial review in respect of the operation of such a measure.
	We said that we would consider this matter and we are doing so very seriously. The issue was raised earlier. However, it should be recognised that the matter is not straightforward. Given the representations that have been made by a whole range of people in this Chamber with tremendous expertise in special educational needs, it was not beyond our wit to anticipate that the issue would arise. We all regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, cannot be present this evening. Given the representations that have been made, if we thought that we could meet the obvious challenge that would be made with regard to a general statement on special educational needs, I assure the Committee that we would probably have been able to produce such a statement.
	As I say, we are considering the matter and our efforts may bear fruit. However, in the meantime, I reassure the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his absence that there is nothing within the framework of federation that jeopardises the concept of proper facilities, treatment and resources for special needs; far from it. Our whole intention is to ensure that those are enhanced.
	I turn to Amendment No. 118 which is grouped with Amendment No. 115. We intend to regulate that it will be for the governing body of the federation to look at each school's special educational needs provision and decide whether developing a common policy would be both feasible and beneficial, or whether distinct SEN policy should be established for certain—or each and every—school within a federation. We envisage, for example, that federations involving special schools would wish to retain a distinct special educational needs policy for any special school.
	However, it is worth noting that federation would provide an opportunity for special schools to share best practice in this area. That in turn could be used to enrich SEN policies and provision in other schools in the federation. It would also contribute to a wider strategy of sharing best practice.
	I hope that, on the basis of those arguments, I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We recognise the motivation that lies behind the amendment. I am grateful to her for the way in which she expressed her views. I hope that I reassure her that we regard federation as an enhancing development.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, feels that I am unduly gloomy on these issues. I began by trying to be positive about them all. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. It is important to stress the need to bring all schools in a federation up to the standard of best practice. As the noble Lord wishes, we should look positively on these issues. This is an opportunity to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 15, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6), regulations made under section 18(2) shall, in so far as they make provision for the composition of the governing body of a federation, provide that the number of persons in each category of which the governing body consists shall be the same in proportion to the total number of governors, or as near thereto as is reasonably practicable, as would be the case if the federated schools were together a single school."

Baroness Walmsley: The amendment would ensure that any regulations make provision for securing the same balance of stakeholder representation for federated school governing bodies as that required for single school governing bodies—in other words, as would have been the case if the federated school were a single school. It would ensure that the governing body of the federation had the benefit of experienced representation from different types of school within the federation. I refer, for example, to a special school within a federation of mainstream schools or a nursery school within such a federation. There may be advantages in bringing a group of schools together to share expertise, resources and facilities. However, bringing schools under one governing body may be problematic.
	Will the Minister clarify the role of the governing body when one school in a federation enters special measures? How will grouped governing bodies be fully accountable to the community and to each of the schools within the group that they serve, particularly if the group is large? There is a danger, for example, of a decrease in social representation on governing bodies because some governors might find it difficult to travel considerable distances to meetings. Would governing bodies be required to move their meetings around the schools in a group?
	The workload for a grouped governing body is likely to increase with more than one school budget, school development plan, action plan and other school policies to be considered. In light of the increasing difficulty of getting school governors, could that make the problem even worse?
	More research should be undertaken into, and more evidence gathered on, the benefits of grouping schools under a single governing body before any change takes place. Collaboration between schools is essential to the provision of first-class education. That is already happening all over the country anyway. There appears to be no obvious reason for the reintroduction of grouped governing bodies.
	The amendment seeks further clarification. How will the Government ensure that all types of governors and schools are represented appropriately on a federated governing body when the schools within the group are of differing types? I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Baroness that maintaining a healthy balance is very important for any governing body, including federated governing bodies. I reassure Members of the Committee that we intend that the composition of the governing body of a federation will broadly conform to the stakeholder principles as recommended by the Way Forward group, which, under Clause 18, will be set out in regulations.
	I reassure Members of the Committee that where schools of the same category wish to federate, there will be regulations requiring them to conform exactly to the proportions of representation for each stakeholder group to be set out in regulations, as for single maintained school governing bodies. The only issue that may have a small bearing on the degree of conformity is the size of the governing body of the federation. In order for that not to become so large as to be unwieldy, combined schools will have fewer governors in each category than they would have had if they had remained under separate governing bodies. However, the representation within the whole governing body will be the same as for a single school.
	Clauses 23 and 24 allow for schools of different categories to federate. We do not want such combinations to be prevented merely because schools belong to different categories. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that the goal of improving standards should not be constrained simply by the different categories.
	Again, as for federations involving schools of the same category, we would expect the governing bodies of mixed category federations to conform broadly with the stakeholder principles outlined in Clause 18. We shall be regulating to ensure that parents and staff are represented in the same proportions as they will be in any single maintained school.
	I recognise that it is important for all participating schools to be content with the level of stakeholder representation on the governing body of the federation. Therefore, we shall consult widely to develop the principles that allow for sufficient involvement for each school and each stakeholder group in the governing body of the federation.
	As I said, we intend to regulate that schools putting forward for consultation plans to federate must include as part of their proposals the stakeholder composition that they intend to put in place for the governing body. That should make clear the proportion of representation for each stakeholder group that is required to be represented on the governing body. That means that all the parties which governing bodies will be required to consult—that is, parents, staff, the local education authority, the community, and partnership or foundation governors—will have the opportunity to comment on the proportions of stakeholder composition.
	It is, of course, only at the end of that consultation process, after hearing the views of all the affected stakeholders, that each governing body will decide whether it wishes to federate. I hope that, in the light of those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her answer. However, can she clarify the situation of a school in special measures within a federated group?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry. I did intend to answer that point. Such a school would be part of a federated governing body. The federated governing body would be responsible for that school as part of its work. Therefore, the local education authority would be working with that body as the governing body of the school. That may require the local education authority to consider additional governors, or it may mean that the budget of the school is controlled by the local education authority, and so on. But that is all possible within federation. We would need to ensure that intervention was possible, regardless of the nature of the governing body, in order to protect the education of those children.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Can she assure me that, in deciding whether or not federation was desirable, the social composition of the governing body would also be taken into consideration? In some cases, the distances involved might be great, and it would be important that governors were not constrained in serving on a governing body because of problems of that nature.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I return to the original point. It would be for the governing bodies of the schools involved to decide whether they wanted to proceed in that way. The people involved in such a decision are those whom we recognise as having good sense, and they will also consider the logistical issues. We would want them to do that, and it would be part of their job to do so. However, ultimately they must make the decision. They will consider all the issues, including the benefits that will arise for the children—that is, after all, what this is all about—and make their decision accordingly. I am sure that they will take those issues on board.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that further clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Blatch: We can be fairly brief because we have had quite a long discussion on these amendments. However, I want to make one point, particularly in response to the last amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
	We are at a disadvantage. The Minister is being careful and diligent in her replies to us and, I believe, extremely empathetic and sympathetic to many of the points that have been made during the course of the debate. However, ultimately, it is what goes into statute that will matter. Personal reassurances are very welcome and warming, but that is not what the words on the page of the Bill say. Therefore, we shall be looking very carefully at the detail to ensure that some of the reassurances that have been given personally by the Minister appear somewhere in the legislation.
	That leads me to my next point concerning regulations. I have already asked how many sets of regulations there will be on the passing of the Bill. But I wonder whether we are likely to see a draft form of these particular regulations before the Bill proceeds very much further. We have no policy paper on federations. We have policy papers on almost everything else but not on federations. And there is an enormous amount of detail that we want to see. I do not wish to be negative but, as the only part of Parliament that carries out this work, our duty is to test some of the propositions that the Government put forward so that, when the legislation becomes law, it is as workable as possible.
	The reassurances that we are given will be matched only by the detail that follows. Only after federation is in place will people consider some of the practical points that have come to light in the debate. For example, they will realise how time-consuming and costly it may be to cope with the logistics of travelling between schools. They will need to ensure that no single person is disadvantaged by becoming a governor because of the amount of travelling involved. Although a governing body may have thought through such matters and consider them to be acceptable, new governors will inherit the obligation to move between schools. That is a particular issue in rural areas. One can separate the urban from the rural areas in this case. There would have to be an evaluation and monitoring process to ensure that the arrangements are working and that each of the schools are being treated on a par with one another.
	The dissemination of working papers, agenda materials and other materials between schools would be time consuming and at a cost. We hope that such matters are thought through. It would help enormously to have an assurance from the Minister that we shall see at least a draft form of regulations before the Bill progresses much further.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches I thank the Minister for the degree to which she has clarified some of the ideas behind the concept of federation. Certainly, I have a much clearer understanding of the purpose of federation. I share the doubts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the implementation of some of the detail. Clearly, it would be good to see draft regulations before Report.
	We retain some reservations. The point which comes through to me most clearly is that it is probable that few schools would make use of these procedures to federate because there is not such advantage in it. As has been said, co-operation can come without federation. Having said that, I do not intend to oppose the Question whether Clause 23 stand part.

Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Federations: supplementary provisions]:
	[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
	Clause 24 agreed to.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 119:
	After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL PARENTS' COUNCILS
	(1) The Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales shall make arrangements for the establishment in each country of a National Parents' Council, which shall consist of elected representatives of parent governors, one from each local education authority area.
	(2) Regulations shall provide for—
	(a) eligibility for election to the respective Councils;
	(b) the procedures by which such elections will take place;
	(c) the terms of office of members and officers;
	(d) the procedures by which the chairman and vice chairman are to be elected;
	(e) arrangements for meetings of the respective Councils;
	(f) the reimbursement of members for travel and expenses;
	(g) any other matters relating to the constitution, procedures and meetings of the Councils as are appropriate."

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I tabled Amendment No. 119 as a probing amendment to gauge the Government's response. However, I have been thoroughly surprised by and pleased at the number of letters and e-mails that I have received congratulating me on tabling the amendment and supporting it wholeheartedly. That has led me to recognise that there is a latent demand for a national parents' council, which perhaps the Minister recognised and which I had not fully appreciated until I came to investigate the issue.
	It appears that there is a real need for an organisation at national level to speak for parents. After all, we have a large number of teachers' unions. We have unions for head teachers, which the Government consult regularly on their educational proposals; but there is no equivalent stakeholder group for parents. As a former active member of the national executive of CASE, which was a self-chosen representative group, we could never claim to be representative of parents because we were not elected to speak for parents. Likewise the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations does invaluable work supporting PTAs but again is not an elected group; nor is the National Governors' Council, although that too represents many parent governors.
	Therefore, it is sensible to move forward in this way. The School Standards and Framework Act introduced parent governor representatives at LEA level. They are elected by parent governors from schools. A national democratically-elected representative voice for parents could be provided by building on the existing right of parents to elect parent governors, and for those parent governors then to elect parent governor representatives at LEA level.
	Government guidance for parent governor representatives at LEA level states:
	"'Parent governor representatives' do not just represent parent governors. They are elected to represent all parents whose children are in local maintained schools or in some other education provided by the local authority. Parents (and their children) have the biggest stake in how well schools perform and how well local authorities support them. It is therefore only right that parents should have a say in local authority decisions that affect parents".
	If those arguments apply at local authority level, they apply at national level.
	A consultative body, regularly re-elected, could meet to consult with the Government as of right. Its function would be consultation. It would provide a means of consultation for the Government directly to parents in schools via parent governors. It could allow a voice for parents, elected only by parents, on to national bodies, such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
	If we look at other countries, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in its 1997 report entitled Parents as Partners in Schooling compared the representation of parents at national level in different OECD countries. The report drew attention to the fact that Spain and Ireland, which most recently had reformed their educational systems, had chosen to give parents a voice at every level, including national level. Denmark, which has always involved parents, was attempting to deepen that involvement. In Canada and the United States a number of provinces and states had reformed their regulations to give parents a voice at state, local and school levels. Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland and Spain all have parents represented on key national policy-making committees and there are national representative parental organisations which are consulted by government. In Germany every Land has a state parent council, made up of elected parent representatives, which advises the Minister of Culture on educational issues, including drawing up curricula and authorising textbooks. For the most part, the OECD report said, parental representation is set down in the legislation of the countries concerned.
	However, the report noted that in England, Wales and Japan parents are not represented as of right on any national policy-making body or advisory committee. Since the report there has been one change in that the Secretary of State has appointed members of the General Teaching Council to represent parents. If there is a case for having parents on the General Teaching council, there is also a case for having a national parents council.
	Another organisation that has advocated a national parents council is none other than the Government's favourite think tank, the IPPR. Joe Hallgarten in his report entitled Parents Exist—OK? advocates a national parents council. In the report he says,
	"The Government should seek to create National Parents' Council. As with the General Teaching Council, the body would be consulted about all initiatives ... A National Parents' Council could stimulate and support school-based participation. The formation of a National Parents' Council in Ireland in 1995 has sent ripples of increased parental participation throughout their school system".
	I return to where we started. Involving parents and allowing them to speak with a clear voice is a risky business. Parents may want what the Government do not want to provide. And of course parents might be wrong. But, in a mature democracy, parents should be allowed to speak with a collective voice. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government recognise the essential role of parents in education. Their involvement and support for their child's learning is critical. We all know that education is most effective when teachers and parents work together in close partnership to the benefit of the child.
	We have some doubts about the concept of the national parents council, not least because—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, would recognise this—of the extent to which the Government have taken steps to give parents a more effective voice. They have an effective say in their children's education as a result of the home-school agreements. We have increased the number of parent governors on school governing bodies. The new provisions for the constitution of governing bodies will provide consistently for one third of governor places to be for parents. We have created the parent governor representative in order to give parents a voice on local authority committees that deal with education matters.
	Our view is that the role of parent governor representatives is to represent to the local education authority the views of all parents in the area on locally provided education. That meets many of the broad objectives of today's proposal. The PGRs act as an apolitical voice for parents in the local authority area. They also have a valuable role to play in feeding back to parents the local authority's discussions and decisions on education issues. We have been concerned to move from the local to the national. We established the national network for PGRs to enable them to keep in touch with each other and to share best practice. That network is proving a useful tool in helping parent governor representatives in their task and by providing a further channel of communication with parents.
	Where we disagree with the amendment is on the question of whether a further national body would be helpful. I recognise that the noble Baroness has gone to considerable care to identify the composition of such a body. She outlined its functions in her speech, but the amendment does not spell them out. In any case, the broad objectives that appear to underpin the amendment are met by the extensive developments in parents' representation that the Government have effected in recent years. Of course, we are committed to the support mechanisms available to parent governor representatives to ensure that the parental voice continues to be heard as effectively as possible.
	I hear what the noble Baroness says about international comparisons, but developments in recent years have struck out the concept that I recall reading about in a newspaper article only earlier this week, when Professor Wragg referred to those days when a line was drawn in school playgrounds which parents were expected never to cross. We have moved a long way beyond that now.
	So we share the concern of the noble Baroness that parents should be encouraged to make as large a contribution to their own child's education as they can and representatives of parents to play their full part with local authorities and, through the network, across the nation. But we do not accept the concept of a national parents council.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply, but my inclination is to say to him, "Get real!". Who makes decisions about education in this country? They are no longer made by local education authorities. Yes, we are trying to get them made by local education authorities. The Minister is quite right to say that there is no longer any line in schools with parents behind it. It is excellent that we now have real co-operation. The Minister is right: good schools are those where parents and teachers co-operate to educate their children.
	But the line is drawn at the national level. There is no proper discussion or consultation with parents at the national level. We are asking for a proper, representative stakeholder group for parents. The Minister said how good it was to have that locally but, as I say, decisions are taken nationally. It is therefore appropriate that there should be consultation at national level. We shall probably return to the matter on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Limits on power to provide community facilities etc.]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 16, line 27, leave out "to a significant extent"

Baroness Blatch: We now move to a separate subject. Clause 26 allows governing bodies to provide facilities or services to further any charitable purpose for the benefit of pupils, their families or local communities. They may incur expenditure, enter into agreements, co-operate, facilitate or co-ordinate the activities of any person and provide staff, goods, services and accommodation to any person. Any charging must be subject to Chapter 3 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996. That is also subject to the school's instrument of government or Section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
	According to Clause 26(2) all this is also subject to regulations. Clause 26(3) allows the governing bodies to exercise the powers conferred by Clause 25(1) only if anything they do does not to a significant extent interfere with the duty imposed on them by Clause 20(2) or by any other education Acts.
	Clause 20(2) states that,
	"The governing body shall conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school".
	I cannot accept that a governing body should do anything to interfere with its duty to promote high standards. The only thing that is forbidden by Clause 26(3) is any activity that may interfere to "a significant extent". It remains my contention that the duty of a governing body and school is the children's education and that no level of compromise is acceptable.
	It seems extraordinary phraseology. It is in the Bill for a purpose. It is important that we know that purpose. I propose that Clause 26(3) reads as follows:
	"A governing body shall exercise the power conferred by section 25(1) only if and to the extent that they are satisfied that anything which they propose to do will not interfere with the performance of any duty imposed on them by section 20(2) or by any other provision of the Education Acts".
	If the Government insist that the phraseology remains, they are saying that some compromise in a governing body's primary duty to raise standards in school can be accepted. That is unacceptable. I argue that there should be no compromise. That is supported strongly by the teacher unions and teachers. They do not wish to be placed in a position where a level of compromise of their primary function is acceptable. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The inclusion of the wording "to a significant extent" ensures that insignificant incidental effects on a school's main educational role are not seen as obstacles that would prevent worthwhile services being established. For instance, it might be argued that adults using an ICT suite on school premises during school hours could potentially impact on teachers' and pupils' flexibility to use that suite. But the other side of that example is, of course, that it should have no significant effect in practice on children's learning; and evidence shows that this type of activity can have a positive impact on the achievement of those pupils. Adults learning in schools provide good role models for all pupils, developing positive attitudes towards teaching and learning. We expect all schools that develop family and community services to see a positive impact on the educational standards of their children.
	Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that individuals will not be making these decisions on their own. In exercising their powers under Clause 25, school governors must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and to any advice given to them by the local education authority. That guidance will make it clear that where governors are considering providing community services, they must consult all interested parties.
	In this context, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I are in almost the same place. The words "to a significant extent" imply that there has to be a significance in the extent. In other words, to remove those words is to suggest that an insignificant extent could be taken forward. This may sound pedantic, but it relates to drafting.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that the provision is not about allowing schools to interfere with the raising of educational standards in the education of children. The wording seeks to ensure that children's work is not interfered with to a significant extent. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I find the answer wholly unsatisfactory. The Minister is saying that a governing body will be able to exercise the power conferred on it if, to an insignificant extent, its primary duty, which is that it will conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement, can be compromised or interfered with—not to a significant extent, but if insignificant activities take place. That is unacceptable. Nothing, but nothing, whether significant or insignificant, should interfere with the primary duty. There is no way of measuring what is significant and what is not. In my book it is unacceptable for schools to be allowed to indulge in activities that interfere to any extent with the governing body's primary duty to promote high standards of educational achievement.
	How does a teacher, a school or a governing body know what will be deemed significant or insignificant. There is no scientific measurement; it is in the eye of the beholder. I do not believe that the schools, the governing bodies or the teachers should be detracted in any way from their duty to promote high standards of educational achievement. I find the situation wholly unsatisfactory. I do not accept that answer, but the matter is too important for me to rely on the remnants of the membership of the Committee that surround me this evening. I shall return to the issue, hopefully with a great deal of support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 16, line 27, after "with" insert—
	"( ) the ability (to be determined in consultation with the staff concerned) of members of the staff of the school to perform properly the functions that may be required of them in relation to the education of children at the school, in particular the contribution which they make to the fulfilment of the duties imposed upon local education authorities and upon governing bodies under section 13A(1) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) and section 38(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31) (promoting high standards); and"

Baroness Walmsley: While we on these Benches in general welcome community schools, Amendment No. 121 seeks to ensure proper consultation with staff prior to any decisions taken by a governing body with respect to the provision of community's facilities. The amendment seeks to clarify the Government's intentions on issues such as additional resources with respect to "extended schools". I gather they are known as "full service" schools in the United States, but on the face of the Bill they are referred to as "community facilities".
	In theory, the proposals to enable governing bodies to provide a full range of activities for the benefit of their staff, children and parents and for the members of the wider community are welcome. Research has shown that programmes that support schools in working together and in planning the allocation and distribution of resources and projects have resulted in a shift towards more collegiate approaches to educational provision. The development of school clusters, such as the one in Crewe near where I live, have helped to break down some of the needless rivalry and competition for pupils fostered by recent education reforms. They have also led to a better understanding by schools of each other's needs and have encouraged the sharing of good practice between schools. Of course, in the case of clusters, those wheels have been oiled by extra cash.
	Schools should be given support to respond to the needs of their immediate communities; for example, in developing out-of-school activities and in encouraging the active involvement of communities in local school settings. If effective health and social services provision were situated in schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, that may help to address a wide range of needs that impact on pupils' attainment, as well as perhaps benefiting their families; for example, adult literacy programmes. Initiatives that promote multi-agency approaches to tackling socio-economic impediments to learning at school level can assist schools in facilitating access to essential support services, thus allowing teachers to focus on improving their pupils' academic achievements. As long as appropriate extra resources are provided, I have no doubt that teachers will welcome that kind of approach.
	Such schools could be an effective way of tackling many of the barriers to learning faced by pupils and their families, in the same way as the Sure Start initiative does in the early years. Teachers in schools in areas of social disadvantage are often expected to respond to the social needs of pupils. Schools that have a range of welfare services co-ordinated alongside educational provision would be in a better position to respond to the needs of families and their children without teachers solely being expected to take on that role.
	I understand that the Full Service Schools programme in the United States has been highly effective in helping to improve attainment and relationships between teachers, parents and the wider community. In Scotland, a similar initiative, the New Community Schools programme, has reported comparable findings, with pupil attendance and exclusion rates also much improved. I believe that pilot schemes for such schools should be established with the involvement of teaching and non-teaching staff and with the careful delineation of responsibilities that are based on expectations that avoid excessive workload before the idea is rolled out.
	However, a number of questions need answering. Can the Minister say what additional resources the Government will be able to offer schools to encourage them to widen the use of their facilities and to expand their services? What are the Government's expectations about agreeing provisions with, for example, the local strategic partnership? Does that provision also apply to maintained nursery schools? I beg to move.

Baroness Andrews: In terms of the range of options that we have developed in this country over the past five years for such full-service schools as regards out of school activities, it is worth recording that we are pioneering a great range of new ways to do things using schools as community resources, and so on. First, we have longitudinal research, which is unique to this country and certainly backs up what has been achieved in the United States and in Australia. It shows that there is a direct academic benefit to those who regularly participate in activities, which is revealed not only in their attainment of GCSEs but also in their attitude. We have a very sound path of research that is beginning to accumulate.
	Secondly, over the past five years we have seen the beginning of policy frameworks for enabling schools to develop a whole range of activities with both families and communities out of school. Through this development we have also brought in experts and volunteers to work with teachers in schools to allay some of the fears that the noble Baroness rightly identified in terms of teachers' workload during the school day, which can be intolerable. We have also had the building of capacity at the school level, which has proved to be extremely innovative.
	Thirdly, we have seen a great deal of new funding go into schools through the New Opportunities Fund and through the standards fund. We now have local infrastructure as local authorities have introduced out-of-school-hours learning officers who work with the range of partnerships to maximise such opportunities. We are beginning to develop all these struts of proper policy framework funding and development, which is extremely effective. To an extent, all that addresses some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and, indeed, some of the issues highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as regards the impact on the effectiveness of teaching and learning during the school day. In so far as we have evidence, it seems that such developments are very powerful in terms of raising achievement.
	The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of consultation with staff, because none of these innovations will take place unless the staff are fully involved and fully in agreement. They must see it in terms of their own professional development as something from which they can really benefit; otherwise, they will not do it. Teachers are realistic about what is possible as regards their own time and energy. We have witnessed a very positive feedback from the staff towards students and a virtuous circle being created. This is a positive development in the education system over the past few years.

Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I may comment on the noble Baroness's contribution. As a supporter of the holistic approach to education, especially in the early years, I very much understand the benefits of the sort of experiments outlined by the noble Baroness. In terms of the work that they undertake, I realise that there is a potential for lightening teachers' workload with such initiatives—or, indeed, possibly increasing it.
	I tabled this amendment so that we could ensure that provision is made on the face of the Bill for teachers at least to be consulted on these developments. Such consultation should not just be a case of following best practice, which has been happening. It is a very important issue in terms of these experiments.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In exercising the powers under Clause 25, governors must have regard both to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State and to any guidance given to them by the local education authority. Where governors are considering providing community facilities, the guidance will make clear that they must consult all interested parties, including school staff. As my noble friend Lady Andrews said, the school staff are crucial if this is to work and prove to be appropriate for the school. In drawing up the guidance we are working with a range of partners, including teachers, to ensure that this development is covered effectively.
	In response to the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I can confirm that this provision will also apply to nursery schools, if they so wish.
	I should point out to the Committee that not only are governors required to consult their local education authority, but any proposed activity that would significantly interfere with the fulfilment of the LEA's duty would, by definition, also significantly interfere with the governing body's duties under Clause 20(2).
	I reassure the Committee that, if governors choose to provide community services or facilities, those services must not have a detrimental effect on the performance by school staff of their existing duties—quite the opposite. We know of many schools that have adopted that approach and brought in other professionals to support families and pupils, with the result, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said, that educational attainment has been raised, parental involvement has increased and pupils' behaviour has improved.
	We also know that many teachers are required to deal with numerous non-educational inquiries and problems, brought to them by pupils and families. If governors decide, with others, that a particular service or facility could reduce that burden and support the work of school staff, they should be able to provide such a service. Clause 25 gives governors that power, and Clause 26 provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that any service does not undermine the main role of schools—the provision of a high quality education.
	I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

The Earl of Sandwich: In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has just said, can the Minister give further consideration to the marrying of the two amendments? In retrospect, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was right: we do not need the previous amendment. Perhaps we should consider them together.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am not entirely certain that I understand what the noble Earl seeks to do. Can he give me a little clarification?

The Earl of Sandwich: I am talking about interference with the normal operation of a school. It is clear from what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said that we are moving towards a situation in which there is no such interference. The two amendments feed into each other.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the noble Earl for not picking up his point. I believe that there is no difference between what we are trying to achieve. We want to ensure that schools that wish to provide community services do so in consultation with their staff, the education authority and others and provide those services in order to support the educational attainment of their children and as a community resource.
	Those are compatible objectives, and the evidence so far is that, when that is done, educational attainment, behaviour and attendance improve. That must be an overall objective for a school as a community resource. I am happy to discuss further the particular words that we use with the noble Baroness, but I believe that we are all on the same plane.

Baroness Blatch: It is an important point. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, gave us some powerful reasons why so many positive things are going on, helping schools to achieve their own ends. That is what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was saying.
	The funding that the Government put in to address the issue of class sizes for children up to the age of seven partly achieved its objectives. However, at the other end of the scale—almost as a direct result—class sizes for other age groups worsened. We know now that there will be a concentrated effort to move up the age range. We do not want to see newer or developing activities that interfere at all with the primary duty of schools to educate their children and achieve standards. That is the safeguard that we seek, and, as long as those words remain in the Bill—I am sorry to go back to my amendment, but the amendments are linked—there will be a suspicion that some of the activity will be at the expense of those things.
	We must put it beyond doubt that no activity will be acceptable if it interferes with a school's primary duty to all its children, however important it is to provide community facilities. What the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said was persuasive, but we must get the balance right and make sure that there is no compromise.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reassurances. Guidance is, of course, good, but it would be better to have in the Bill a requirement for consultation with staff about such initiatives, particularly because of the impact that having such facilities on the school site would have on their job—teaching the children. I was, however, delighted to hear the Minister say that, at least in that case, the local authority would be involved.
	I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Additional functions of governing body]:

Baroness Massey of Darwen: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
	"(6) The governing body of a maintained school shall use their best endeavours to secure that—
	(a) reasonable steps are taken by the governing body, head teacher and staff to ascertain the views of pupils on matters which affect them, and
	(b) due weight is given to the expressed views of pupils on matters affecting them, having regard to the pupil's age and understanding."

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I rise to move this amendment tabled in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and my noble friend Lady David, who cannot be here this evening. The amendment was tabled and received with support and enthusiasm in the other place. To me it seems to be irresistible and one that is totally in line with national and international wishes to see children consulted about matters which affect them.
	The amendment states that governors,
	"shall use their best endeavours",
	rather than "may"; the word "shall" is what I mean here. The proposal ties in with what my noble friends Lady David and Lord Peston said earlier about pupil governors. Indeed, my noble friend Lady David talked about pupil participation on Second Reading. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lady Ashton's earlier remarks about pupils as associate governors, so presumably she agrees with the principle of consulting pupils. We must ensure that reasonable steps are taken to do just that, which is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
	Education is an important context for consultation with young people, because children spend so long in it. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that if a child can form his or her own views, then those views should be taken into account,
	"being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
	My noble friend Lady David quoted the White Paper, Schools—achieving success, in which the Government state that they will,
	"encourage students' active participation in the decisions that affect them, about their learning and more widely".
	That might include issues such as organisation, school meals, discipline, policies on bullying as well as curriculum matters. Many schools have school councils and other mechanisms in place for consulting pupils. I know of examples of consultation with regard to PE lessons: what should be worn and what should be taught.
	It is good that citizenship education is to be introduced into the school curriculum this year. Citizenship will include debates and discussion on human rights and responsibilities, and community involvement. However, it seems that citizenship as a subject without citizenship in practice across school life may be seen as tokenistic and pointless. The Advisory Group on Citizenship in education would agree with that. The group states that:
	"Formal preparation for citizenship in adult life can be helped or hindered by the ethos and organisation of a school, whether pupils are given opportunities for exercising responsibilities and initiatives or not; and also whether they are consulted realistically on matters where their opinions can prove relevant both to the efficient running of a school and to their general motivation for learning".
	A recent study on schools councils and democracy commissioned by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers found that where schools councils existed and, within school structures, enabled pupils to take an active role in society, then citizenship education and understanding of democratic processes were enhanced. The Children's Consortium on Education points out that the UK is behind the rest of Europe in pupil democracy. We have no legislation on pupil involvement and no system for consulting pupils on educational policy. This amendment would contribute to remedying that situation.
	But this is not just about democracy. Pupil participation has been shown to influence academic achievement. In a recent study, high levels of attainment at GCSE were found to be associated with active pupil involvement. That is not surprising, given that with participation, positive attitudes to school are likely to be increased.
	In the guidance for applications for the power to innovate, related to this Bill, paragraph 9 states that:
	"We would expect applicants to consult all those who are likely to be affected by a proposal".
	Paragraph 11 states that:
	"Those we would expect the applicants to have consulted include the teaching staff, parents, pupils and any other relevant parties. In assessing proposals, the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that all those with direct interest have been properly consulted".
	We surely should not encourage consultation and participation in one document but not embed consultation and participation for pupils in the whole Bill.
	I hope that I have convinced the Minister that this amendment is useful and constructive in promoting both democracy and pupil achievement and that she will embrace it with enthusiasm. I beg to move.

Baroness Walmsley: I rise to support Amendment No. 122. One of the most worrying things about our education system today is the large number of pupils who feel disaffected with their education to the extent that they are disruptive in the classroom. Indeed, one of the main reasons teachers give for leaving the profession is that they are unhappy with the effort it takes to maintain discipline in the classroom.
	There may be many causes of that in the wider society and we need to look carefully at the curriculum, particularly that for 14 to 19 year-olds. However, when the Government are about to introduce citizenship into the curriculum, surely it makes sense to allow children to learn to make decisions about things that affect them right there in their own schools. Schools forums have been with us for a long time and the best schools take a great deal of notice of what they say. Pupil governors too have made an important contribution to all matters discussed by a governing body, except the pay and conditions of staff.
	However, these structures involve only small numbers of pupils and it is desirable that consultation with pupils becomes much wider. Putting Amendment No. 122 on the face of the Bill would ensure that this happens and send out a message that children are respected and that their views not only matter but are very valuable to schools.
	The Government have made many statements of intent about encouraging more student participation in decisions that affect them; for example, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady David, mentioned, in the White Paper, Schools—achieving success, and in the special educational needs code of practice. Furthermore, by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Government have committed themselves to ensuring that the views of the child are given due weight.
	This piece of legislation gives an excellent opportunity for the Government to show that they mean business as regards student participation, but only if it is on the face of the Bill. Non-statutory guidance is not enough. The amendment sets out a light-touch duty with phrases such as reasonable steps and due weight. It is not unduly onerous to schools to be able to comply with it. Indeed, I believe that schools which have not done enough pupil consultation in the past will, when encouraged to do so by this amendment to the Bill, find it so worthwhile that they will want to do more and more of it.

The Earl of Sandwich: As the Minister knows, I, too, am a supporter of citizenship education and I believe that the Children's Consortium on Education has a powerful voice in the area. It, too, supports the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.
	I declare an interest as a foundation governor of a school in west Dorset where we have a degree of pupil participation. However, we like to see the Government giving more encouragement by putting the provision on the face of the Bill. Children may not know much about the Education Bill—nor do I believe do many adults—but they are aware of the current workload on teachers and the new responsibilities which schools have under a succession of Bills. In my experience, older children benefit enormously from participation and discussion, especially on their own environment and the working practices of the school. Therefore, there is a two-way benefit.
	Moreover, there is evidence that participation leads to a higher level of attainment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warmsley, has already said, as well as to qualities such as motivation and engagement. I want to quote from the report of Professor Bernard Crick's Advisory Group on Citizenship published in 1998. I am sure that the Minister knows it:
	"It is obvious that all formal preparation for citizenship in adult life can be helped or hindered by the ethos and organisation of a school, whether the pupils are given opportunities for exercising responsibilities and initiatives or not; and also whether they are consulted realistically on matters where their opinions can prove relevant both to the efficient running of a school and to their general motivation for learning".
	I do not want a token commitment. I know that the noble Baroness is behind the idea but I should like to see a firm statement in the Bill itself. Save the Children, which is a member of the consortium, states that,
	"failing to place pupil participation on a statutory footing would risk sending the message to schools that listening to and involving pupils is desirable 'best practice', but not essential and not a basic human right of all children and young people".
	The second part of the amendment is so important. We can all live with paragraph (a), but to encourage schools under paragraph (b), which seeks to give weight to the expressed views of pupils, is to make a move forward.

Lord Peston: My noble friend Lady David told me that I had to participate in the debate on this amendment as she could not be here—and I always do what I am told.
	I strongly support the amendment. I should say to my noble friend Lady Massey that we are not discussing democracy here; we are discussing benevolent despotism. A school is run by the despots and we are asking them at least to show some response to those whom they are teaching. That does not mean that benevolent despotism is not better than many other forms of despotism.
	I agree that it is not only a matter of asking young people for their views. The essence of the amendment concerns the response to what they say; to show, as the amendment states, that "due weight" is given to their views. That is not the equivalent of saying to pupils that they are right. Indeed, if you have any concept of citizenship at all, one of things that you have to learn is that a lot of the time you will be wrong. Pupils will have to learn that they will have their say and that there will be a response—and they will have to accept that one of the responses may be "You do not know what you are talking about", and sometimes that they do know what they are talking about.
	If you are a teacher this kind of thing can be threatening. When I was at university—reverting to the subject of benevolent despotism—I was appointed head of department for life. Although I gave up the position long before that, I found it immensely threatening when this idea was put forward. I also found it very frustrating in responding to what, in this case, students wanted. They typically said that they did not care for the pressure of examinations and wanted more course work. So I, being a benevolent despot, said, "Let us move in the direction of more course work". When the course work did not turn up, I said, "You are now going to fail this course because the date for the course work is such and such and you have not got any". They would then say, "Oh, we would rather have examinations"—to which the answer is, "I am sorry, but you gave your views and we responded to them. One of the things you have to learn as a citizen is that you bear the costs of the decisions you take".
	I exaggerate a little—although not in the case that I have in mind—but it does mean that if we go down this route, which I very strongly hope that we do, the pupils themselves must understand what it is that we are moving towards. The essence of this is the combination of listening and responding.
	It may well be that the amendment is not well drafted but, in terms of everything that we have been doing for the past few days, if ever an amendment—or, perhaps, the concept of a possible amendment—should be accepted, it is this one. I believe that my noble friend the Minister should say either yes, she accepts the amendment, or that she does not like the drafting but will come back with her own amendment to cover precisely this issue. That would be a good thing. I do not wish to hear from my noble friend about guidance or the fact that it is already covered elsewhere.
	This is a clear cut case where your Lordships' Committee—particularly having regard to our age group—can speak for young people and say that not only do we want this in the Bill but we very much expect our Minister—because she is the only one who can do anything about this—to come forward with a positive response.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I, too, support the thrust of the amendment. I am not sufficiently expert in parliamentary or legal language to know whether the amendment is drafted correctly or how in legal terms words such as "best endeavours", "reasonable steps" and so on would be interpreted if a governing body was put to the test. But I am absolutely sure that the thrust of the amendment ought to be a part of what we are looking for in the improvement of educational standards, particularly with regard to secondary education. Therefore, I lend my wholehearted support to the amendment.
	I am not sure that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It seems to me that we need a provision on the face of the Bill, but that an interpretation in guidance will also be important in terms of how this is done and how the best endeavours are achieved. However, I lend my support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is trying to achieve.

Baroness Andrews: I want to indicate my support for the amendment with a reference to the kinds of things that are happening in schools where pupils have a direct input. I refer, for example, to anti-bullying strategies and to positive behaviour strategies. There is tremendous variety in the practice of schools up and down the country. The spread of good practice is necessary. We need proper frameworks. I am not against advice: we need help in spreading good practice. Some schools are so much more successful than others and are involving pupils. Those qualities are sticking and are making a difference. Different children have different needs. In supporting the amendment we must seek to reflect that. In the areas of discipline and behaviour and the development of character there is particular benefit to be had from the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Ascertaining the views of pupils on matters that affect them and, as far as possible, giving due weight to those views seems to me to be fundamental in schools. I am nervous about this becoming part of the legislation, and I shall come to that point in a moment.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, gave a number of examples of very good practice. I can think of a number of schools which have schools councils which meet with the staff; they have mechanisms in place for voicing their concerns about, for example, better facilities for sixth form study areas, more effective use of technology, shaping the school day so as to be more effective, homework clubs and many other ideas. They have a "feet on the ground", commonsense, effective view of how matters can be improved for them.
	The other method of ascertaining the views of pupils which was introduced by the Government when I was the Minister was the provision of a slot in the inspection procedures where the inspectors go to the parents and to the children to ask them about the school. Their discussion with the children is confidential; there are no staff present, so they are able to be uninhibited in expressing their views. They are given opportunities for a one-to-one interview if they specifically ask for it. The inspector will make a general comment on the performance of a school to the effect that it has or does not have a good relationship with its children as the case may be. That too is a very good idea.
	I am concerned about this becoming part of statute and make the same point as the right reverend Prelate made; namely, how one measures reasonableness. For example, among children, just as among adults, there are some very quirky ideas. Some children are more proactive in making their views known. Sometimes, the more sensitive and more vulnerable children are the ones who do not say what would improve their lot at school.
	So this is a difficult area. It is a tricky area for teachers. I am concerned about the way in which our community generally is becoming more litigious. Such a provision would provide an opportunity for children and/or parents—children are becoming pretty streetwise about claiming and exercising their rights—to enter into litigation. I am concerned about the kind of protection that would be needed for teachers if they were put in the position of being tested or challenged. The last thing we want is to clog up the world of the tribunals or the courtrooms with claims that children made their voice heard and due weight was not given. The question could arise as to what was reasonable and whether due weight was given to something that a teacher thought impractical.

The Earl of Sandwich: Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive my interruption. Does she see any difference between young people and adults as regards unruliness?

Baroness Blatch: I do not think that any of us escapes from being described as unruly in some way. Some of us have a propensity for being more unruly than others. In today's world, teachers are vulnerable to all sorts of problems. There is the potential for challenges by parents or by pupils, as well as the full weight of human rights legislation. There has to be protection for children, but children will have different views about what schools should be providing, the method by which it should be provided and the way in which teachers should provide education. The extent to which that is listened to and responded to and the weight that is given to those views—that is the subject of the second part of the amendment—would be judged and could be challenged. I am fearful that the system could be open to vexatious claims and to a great deal of time wasting.
	I support the thrust of what is being asked for—that the voice of children should be ascertained, listened to and, when possible, heeded and given due weight. The working of the inspectorate, which goes in and out of schools regularly, could be strengthened to test the way in which schools do that. I should prefer it to be done by encouraging examples in which the children come together. I recently came across a school in the North East that has a school pupil counselling service. A group of young people set aside part of their lunchtime and, after a bit of training in counselling, become a listening ear for any other pupil in the school who wants to come to talk to them. All sorts of safeguards are built in in case they are being told something disturbing.
	The system is working in that school and it allows those who have been singled out to be the counsellors—to be the eyes and ears for the staff—to go to the staff and initiate new thinking about changes that could be made in the school that would make life easier or would pick up on the signs of the bullying that people do not see on the surface.
	I am behind the aims of the amendment, but I am fearful of it going on the statute book, because without proper scientific ways of measuring the issue and without proper protection for teachers against vexatious claims, it would be difficult to implement in practice.

Lord Lucas: I entirely agree with my noble friend and support the thrust of the amendment in the way in which she has done. What she says about the school she mentioned in the North East is right. Such policies tend to result in the nice kids being those with power, influence and respect among the pupils, because they will be chosen as counsellors and will have the ear of the teachers. That produces a power structure in which the nice ones rather than the rough ones or the smart ones attract the adulation of the younger pupils. That produces an enormous benefit.
	However, I take a lot of caution from what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about the fearfulness with which teachers will greet the idea if they are dumped into it and have to plunge into democracy with a lot of kids who may have been managed in a different way, particularly in more difficult circumstances. Such systems should be grown from inside rather than imposed from outside. To work, they have to come from within the school. The role of the Government is to encourage that.
	There is a lot that the Government can do. They can put some real effort behind making sure that the next round of beacon schools contains some schools that are beacons for these ideas. They can make sure that the curriculum of the head teachers training college includes real experience of what it is like to run a democratic school. Perhaps they should spend a week or two in a Steiner school to see what it is like. Such schools work very well because of the commitment of the children, the parents and the staff to that environment, because that kind of democracy has grown up through the spirit of the school. To impose it through legislation is the wrong way. We want some real commitment from the Government to put force and money behind the idea, but I would not like to see it in statute.

Lord Peston: I refer to a point that has already been made. Why does not the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, apply the same argument to parents? What has he got against children, to put it bluntly? And what has he got against difficult children, to put it bluntly? His comments were a classic, but not surprising, example of a speech against democracy. For hundreds of years a case has been made against democracy on the ground that all the difficult people would start to exercise power and make demands. It has been suggested in quite a few of our debates on the future of this great Chamber that if we permit certain measures we might attract the wrong kind of people who will start to create difficulties.
	I regard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as absolutely ridiculous. Either you believe in a free society, citizenship and democracy, which may lead to problems, but you believe in it because you think that ultimately it is right, or you do not. I reject those arguments from the Benches opposite. They are absurd. We have fought for a long time in this country not to be taken in by exactly that kind of argument. The argument was advanced that teachers will find the measure stressful. I make the point that they are meant to find it stressful as it is a good thing. I had to respond to this stressful process and it did me good. Other professors also gained from running their departments bearing in mind the interests of their students. I am sorry to press the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but he has explained exactly why I think our side of the argument is right.

The Earl of Listowel: I have listened to this debate with fascination. With regard to the value added criteria that the Minister is considering, will she say whether she might consider this measure as one of those criteria; that is, the engagement of children in the processes of a school?

Baroness Walmsley: I find the objections of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, somewhat depressing. Must we really be held back from a great advance in engaging children and making them feel valued and consulted within a school simply because of a fear of possible bad behaviour? Almost anything is open to challenge. The wording of the amendment is "light touch"; it is not onerous. It is relatively easy to interpret. Although it may, of course, be challenged on occasion, a governing body that is genuinely attempting to give due weight and due consideration to the views of children and can justify the way in which it has done that will be impervious to scurrilous challenge.

Baroness Blatch: I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the subject of parents. There is a requirement in statute that one must heed parents' preferences for school places where that is possible and where it is consistent with the educational needs of a child. However, I know of no statute that states that one has to ascertain the views of parents and give due weight to them as regards the running of a school. It is the governing body that does that. Almost any school worth its salt knows its pupils. If it does not, that should come out in inspection reports which will state that the school concerned does not have a satisfactory relationship with its pupils or understand that it has some disquieted pupils. That would emerge in an inspection.
	The idea that one must exhort this area of school activity through legislation is in my view depressing. I honestly believe that there are many ways in which one can encourage and disseminate best practice and give children a voice and make sure that the voice is properly heard. However, once such a measure is included in a statute, it becomes open to challenge in a way that I think would not be beneficial to teachers, or even frankly at the end of the day to children.

Lord Peston: The noble Baroness probably does not go as far back in education as I do. I go back to the days when a line was drawn and you could not go through the front door. I was part of those groups who fought to let parents through that door. I was part of a group who formed the first parents' association in a school in Haringey. Therefore, I know all about the battles and the stresses involved in these matters. But eventually parents managed to move forward.
	The Bill contains measures which concern parents. I refer to the parent governor measure and the parent meetings measure. There are various other such measures. The hour is late and I am glad that the noble Baroness will return to the matter on Report. We may well have to debate that further.
	I regard the argument about litigation as so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. The current scale of litigation in our country, which could be large, is minimal. We were told in relation to many matters involving standards—this is also true of universities—that there would be court cases on a massive scale. People would say, "Why was I given this grade, not that grade?". We have had hardly any experience of that. We should not have such fears. We should embrace the possibilities—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, put that very well. It is particularly incumbent on your Lordships' House to give a lead in this area. One certainly cannot expect that from the other place, which has no vision at all in relation to such matters. That is why I press the matter strongly on my noble friend.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We have had an interesting debate, which mirrors, in some ways, the debate that we have had in the ministerial team on how to approach this matter and how to get it right. I am aware of the views that have been expressed and recognise that people are saying to me, very clearly, that there is an important role for children and young people, which needs to be recognised.
	Members of the Committee have their own experiences in this regard. Having chaired a school governing body, I know the value of involving children in thinking through issues such as bullying. At the risk of further delaying the Committee, I shall give a brief anecdote.
	To work out where in a school children were worried about bullying, we took a plan of the school and asked young children to draw on the plan in red where they felt safe and blue where they did not. That helped us to redesign the school building. We used the pupils' involvement to support them. They illustrated, in that simple way, which parts of the school needed decorating or were areas in which bullying might be occurring. There are many approaches and methods that we need to consider when translating the principle into reality.
	The Government's view is very clear. We cannot deal with this matter overnight; we need long-term investment, real commitment and incremental change to the way in which we do things. The biggest error that the Government could make would be to implement anything that was tokenistic in its approach and which did not genuinely value the contribution that young people make. That means facing some real challenges. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, we must avoid consulting only the articulate and visible in schools or the wider community. We must ensure that the hardest to reach—some of our most vulnerable children—can participate and have an opportunity to be involved. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will be interested to hear that I refer, for example, to children in care.
	We believe that we have a firm foundation on which to build. We set out in the schools White Paper some of the areas in which we have acted on our commitment to involve young people. Members of the Committee have mentioned citizenship and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the role of schools councils. We have produced a secondary schools toolkit to support students' active participation, building on what we have done at the primary level.
	We have also consulted young people within the department and are currently in the process of consulting on changes to the strategies for 14 to 19 year-olds. We have genuine commitments in this regard. The question is: how do we take them forward? We believe very strongly that participation can and should take many different forms if it is to fit the particular circumstances in which schools will find themselves and if it is to be relevant to the age of the children and the circumstances that best fit that.
	For that reason, we believe that the best way forward is to go to statutory guidance. That will result in amendments to the Bill. That statutory guidance will, we believe, offer schools a flexible menu of options. From our point of view, that is the best way forward. It will allow schools to adopt the best-fit model of participation and adapt it over time as circumstances change.
	Nevertheless, schools will not be able to do nothing. Schools will, as part of Ofsted's inspections, be checked—I assure the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in that regard—to ensure that they are adhering to the guidance, just as they are checked in relation to all other statutory obligations. It is already consulting on a mechanism to ensure that young people's views are heard in schools generally and in inspection reports.
	The Government are strongly of the view that that is the way forward. We wish to consider how best that can be achieved. I hope that my noble friend appreciates that we are committed to finding an effective way forward. We believe that statutory guidance would help us to do that. We would like to put that in place as soon as possible. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I thank noble Lords for their support and contributions this evening. We have had a most interesting discussion and many useful examples have been given. Of course, young people sometimes have to learn that they cannot have their own way. As a head of year in an inner-city school, I remember having to discuss with a group of pupils their wish to have more ventilation in the toilets because young people were smoking in there. It provided me with a good opportunity to hold a health education lesson.
	I believe that it is the role of government to encourage consultation with pupils, and that that needs to be stated. After all, inspections take place only every four years or so, I believe. Rather than being hindered or frightened by them, teachers sometimes find that a democratic approach and consultation with pupils helps them to teach. I have certainly found that in my own experience.
	I thank the Minister for her reply, which I obviously need to consider. I know that we shall return to this issue as there is much interest in it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Governors' reports and other information]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 17, line 19, leave out "shall" and insert "may".

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. These amendments have been tabled at the behest of the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association. Both believe that the degree of prescription from the centre about annual reports is quite unnecessary. It makes the whole procedure highly bureaucratic. At a time when the Government are aiming to cut back on regulations and bureaucracy, the National Association of Head Teachers, in particular, questions even whether an annual report of this nature is required. Many schools issue regular newsletters to parents updating them on developments, and it is felt that these often provide as good a basis as anything else for discussions at the annual meeting between parents and governors.
	In addition, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 put into primary legislation that a school—both the head teacher and governing body—should give the local education authority the information that it needs to discharge its functions. It has always been assumed that that was the case but it was considered best to put it into legislation. The original wording appears in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. But this Bill makes the existing powers and duties which were written into the Act subject to regulations being made. It exposes the degree to which the Government are gold-plating the whole regulation issue, if I may say so.
	Any local education authority worth its salt has regular meetings and correspondence with its heads. Why should central government prescribe the documentation that has to be provided? Why cannot central government let go the reins and allow local education authorities to decide what is and what is not required?
	The aim of the amendments is to give greater discretion to heads and local education authorities to decide what documentation is required and to minimise the degree of direction from the centre. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Frankly, this is the nanny state gone mad. Let us give schools the space. The annual report now produced by schools is well established. They now know that there is an expectation that they will produce information for parents. It seems to me that the requirements under this clause are unnecessary.

Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness has indicated, Amendment No. 123 would leave it open to individual governing bodies to decide whether or not to produce an annual report for parents in any year. Under the amendment, if a governing body chose never to do so, parents would not receive the full information to which we believe they are all entitled if they are to become more involved in their child's education. We believe it is important that all parents continue to be given a copy of the report. We also encourage schools to place a copy of the report on their website, if they have one, in addition to giving a copy to parents. We believe that parents have the greatest interest in pressing for rising standards. If they are denied access to key information about how their child's school is performing, they will not be able to do that.
	I recognise the representations made in the introductory comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and recognise also that there is validity in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We want to reduce the bureaucratic demands upon headteachers. We have reduced the amount of information which, by regulation, must be included. In doing so we have taken account of the concerns about bureaucratic burdens. However, we believe that governing bodies should not be able to decide that parents should not have any information. Surely, that is a step too far. We believe that this particular obligation in the report, which is fulfilled in many other varied ways by schools, guarantees that parents can be assured that they have the information they require in order to fulfil their obligations in respect of their child's education. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lucas: I do not know whether the noble Baroness intended to speak to Amendment No. 132A in this group. If she did, I should very much like to hear the Government's views on it.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 132A. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is not here and I have a brief from him. I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of that.
	I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 132A. The Special Education Consortium is concerned about the impact of schools giving priority in admission to children who show an aptitude for a particular subject. Although the Bill does not mention specialist schools, it provides the necessary framework and encouragement for other schools to join rank. The Government have set a target of 50 per cent for all secondary children being educated in specialist schools by the year 2005. Up to 10 per cent of admissions to those can be selected on the basis of ability or rather more speculatively by aptitude.
	Research from both Ofsted and the Sheffield Hallam University indicates that specialist schools are not taking their fair share of pupils with special educational needs. Given the doubt that that research casts on selective admissions policies and practices, I should welcome an assurance of better things from the Minister. Specifically, I should welcome assurances that disabled children and pupils with special educational needs are not consigned to the non-specialist less favoured schools and that schools applying for specialist status will have to demonstrate high special educational needs standards, and to commit themselves to improving access and curriculum support for disabled children and pupils with special educational needs.
	The new clause proposes a modest solution to the problem. It focuses on the information that schools will provide for parents. Schools would be required to publish in their information to parents what percentage of their intake they select and what percentage they do not select.
	If the Minister wishes to offer assurances rather than legislation, I shall be glad to hear them. So far, the Minister has been able to give us warm assurances throughout the debate. However, I fear that such assurances may fall on deaf ears outside the House. Why will the Minister not offer assurances on the face of the Bill or promise them in regulations?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for advancing the debate tonight and for reminding us that Amendment No. 132A is grouped with the amendments we are discussing. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for speaking to the amendment. Once again, we miss the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who takes a keen interest in all these issues.
	We want to make a parent's expression of preference for a school as meaningful as possible. I think that Members of the Committee would agree on the importance of giving parents sufficient information to ensure that they can make an informed preference for a school.
	However, it is an obvious fact that no matter how much information is provided on how a previous year's places were allocated, that cannot be an accurate prediction of how places will be allocated the following year. It can only serve as an indicator. Local circumstances fluctuate and the number of children who gain admission because they fall into specified criteria—for example, siblings, worshippers in a particular parish or those living in a particular area—may vary greatly from one year to the next. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that 93 per cent of our specialist schools do not select for entry.
	The current provisions under Section 92 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already require the specific school to which this proposed new section applies to publish information about its admissions arrangements. In addition, the Education (School Information) Regulations 1998, as amended, require local education authorities to publish composite prospectuses for their areas. These must include details of each school and its admissions policy, including how priority for places will be given to applicants if the school is oversubscribed.
	The prospectus must also give information on the number of places that were available the previous year and the number of applications made for them. Some authorities go further than that and already publish the information suggested by noble Lords today. Indeed, the department's Code of Practice on School Admissions encourages LEAs to publish other information about local admissions which they consider will be of interest to local parents.
	Research conducted on behalf of the department by the Sheffield Hallam University and the Office of National Statistics found that, nationally, 96 per cent of children found places at a school with which their parents were happy. Although we are seeking to ensure that even more parental preferences are met, by strengthening the admissions framework, it is clear that the present requirements for provision of information are working for parents.
	Both under existing legislation and the new provision proposed by the Bill, all admission authorities already are, and will continue to be, required to publish a significant amount of information which we believe assists parents in making informed choices for their children. I can see, as the noble Baroness indicated in her remarks, the warmth of commitment to the real interests that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, brings to his contribution on these issues with regard to admissions and the specific groups of children in which he takes such a keen interest. I want to emphasise once again that we are entirely with him in spirit in his objective, but we believe that we have in place the necessary structure which works to the satisfaction of the vast majority of parents. I do not believe, therefore, that Amendment No. 132A, in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also expressed a keen interest, is necessary. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. The key issue is that there is worry that these specialist schools are not at the moment taking their full share of those with special educational needs. This is clearly shown from the research undertaken by the Sheffield Hallam University. It is necessary that the Government monitor these things in order to ensure that these schools, which are offering, after all, specialist facilities which are supposedly open to the whole community, are fully serving the community and those with special educational needs and disabilities.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I may intervene. Of course the noble Baroness is right. The research was commissioned by the department in order to inform us more fully about the provision. She is right that it was undertaken to look at specific areas. We give the undertaking that we are looking at the findings very closely indeed in order to guide future action.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us that undertaking. With that, and with his assurances—although I am not sure that they were assurances; rather, his acknowledgement that the procedures relating to information are perhaps somewhat over-bureaucratic—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 17, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) the inclusion in the governors' report of information about the effectiveness of the school's provision for disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs;"

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 133. The Bill substantially rewrites the existing arrangements for governing bodies. That affects not only the running and structure of schools, which we have discussed, but schools' special educational needs policies.
	The exposition of the special educational needs policy of a particular school is given each year in the annual report. Although I argued earlier on behalf of the National Association of Head Teachers that an annual report may not always be necessary, from the point of view of parents with children with special educational needs or disabilities, it is often the one place where each year they have the necessary information written down and produced coherently. Equally, the annual parents meeting, while not always well attended, is the only occasion at which parents can discuss the school's general approach to matters such as special educational needs.
	The amendment would require each school's governing body to comment to parents in its annual report on the effectiveness of its special educational needs policy in improving the educational standards of its special educational needs pupils and disabled children. It would provide parents with a method of tracking what is happening and would allay their fears that their children are not receiving the best possible education, whether they are in a mainstream, specialist or special school.
	Amendment No. 133 would ensure that when schools operate jointly, they do so for the benefit of special educational needs pupils and disabled children. I do not want to detain the Committee for long with the amendments, because my concerns about the schemes are the same as with the issue of federation, which we discussed earlier. We do not object to the introduction of those innovative schemes, but there are fears that some proposals could act to the disadvantage of pupils with special educational needs or disabilities and that their needs may be forgotten. It is important both in the annual report and if there were a federation—as is covered by Amendment No. 133—that there should be regular monitoring and reporting back to parents. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My memory may not serve me terribly well—it is late, so that is possible—but my understanding is that annual reports comment on the progress or otherwise of all children in a school, so I am not sure that Amendment No. 124 is necessary. I agree that that should happen, but I await confirmation that it is already part of statute—or at least of the regulations that govern what annual reports should contain.
	On Amendment No. 133, which would require governing bodies that propose joint discharge of functions to show how they would discharge their responsibilities towards disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs, I return to my perennial suggestion. If there was some form of fundamental, portmanteau obligation at the beginning of the Bill stating that nothing in the Bill shall in any way affect the quality of provision for special educational needs, we could dispense with going through the Bill in penny packets asking for amendments to include special educational needs.
	The school governing bodies are now expected to venture into some new territory with the joint venture. Although not entirely new, the concept is new in the formal sense in the Bill. The excitement of engaging with a third party may result in the needs of a group of children being neglected. The safeguard should be in the Bill. I should prefer in Clause 1 or 2 a statement with weight given to it whereby, whatever other activity was given statutory force, the requirements of children with special educational needs were protected.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: First, we are looking at precisely that issue. As my noble friend said, if it were a straightforward exercise we would have brought it forward. There is a real commitment by the Government to ensure that we protect all our children, but especially those who are most vulnerable and, included within that, children with special educational needs. We shall come back to this Chamber and we shall be in discussion with noble Lords between stages to see how far we have got. I make that commitment openly.
	I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we agree about the importance of schools being accountable to parents on their policies towards pupils with disabilities and with special educational needs. Revised regulations on the content of the governors' annual report are being introduced in May. Schools will have to include within governors' annual reports a summary of the governing body's policy for the school in relation to children with special educational needs, any significant changes to that policy since the last governors' annual report and a statement on the success in implementing that policy in the last year.
	We sent guidance to schools in April on these regulations which made clear that annual reports must contain these elements. The noble Baroness has put forward the perfect case as to why we need an annual report to parents. I realise how difficult it is to move an amendment on behalf of someone else.
	In addition, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 has amended the Education Act to require that from September 2002 governors' annual reports contain a description of the arrangements for the admission of pupils with disabilities, details of steps to prevent disabled pupils being treated less favourably than other pupils, details of facilities to assist access to the school by pupils with disabilities and, once it has been drawn up, details of the school's accessibility plan under Section 28D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Guidance on this planning duty, due out in June, will further recommend that schools reproduce the whole of the accessibility plan within the annual report where possible. I hope that, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that reassures the noble Baroness.
	On Amendment No. 133, I believe that our provisions for allowing schools jointly to discharge their functions, including functions relating to providing for children with special educational needs, have a potential to lead to better standards for those pupils. However, I recognise the importance of accountability and fully agree that the ultimate responsibility for effective provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities should remain with the governing bodies of individual schools where they are not federated. If two or more schools wish to set up a joint committee to have a specific oversight of school arrangements and provision for meeting special educational needs and their DDA duties, Clause 29 of the Bill will enable them to do so.
	Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that, although certain special educational needs and disability functions may be delegated to a joint committee, each governing body of each school involved will still be responsible for ensuring that its school is making special educational needs provision, making reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils and planning for disabled access in accordance with legislative requirements and the 2001 special educational needs code of practice.
	There will be no watering down of accountability for this important and vulnerable group of pupils. We plan to consult widely on how the proposals will be implemented and will talk to key people within the special educational needs lobby and disability stakeholders as part of the process.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for her forthcoming reply on these two amendments. It is quite clear that she will consider the issue of special educational needs within the context of the Bill, for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 125 to 132 not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 132A not moved.]
	Clause 29 [Arrangements for joint discharge of functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Control of school premises]:

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 135:
	Page 18, line 21, at end insert "subject to the principle that the local education authority may give such directions as to the occupation and use of the premises of a community or community special school as they think fit"

Baroness Walmsley: The purpose of Amendment No. 135 is to re-introduce into primary legislation a principle that already exists in Schedule 13 to the School Standards and Framework Act: that the LEA may give such directions for the use of community school premises as it thinks fit.
	It is important to have legislation on the use of school buildings because, on the whole, the buildings are not owned by schools but by local authorities on behalf of the community, or in the case of Church schools by foundations. The Bill aims to shift primary legislation to regulation. At present there are six pages of the School Standards and Framework Act on the topic.
	While shifting the bulk of the legislation may be sensible, there should be a few principles about the use of school buildings on the face of the Bill. The amendment inserts the principle that the occupation and use of the premises of the school both inside and outside school hours shall be under the control of the governing body, subject to any directions given by the LEA. Perhaps the Minister will say why the Government are reluctant to put such principles on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I want to speak to Amendment No. 136 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am sorry to introduce a slightly technical, but important, amendment at this late hour. It deals with foundation, voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools. In a voluntary-aided school where the foundation governors are in a majority, the Church-appointed governors are in a position to control the use of the premises outside school hours.
	The main point of the amendment is that the foundation governors are, of course, in a minority in foundation and voluntary-controlled schools. Therefore, special safeguards are needed. I believe such safeguards have been enshrined in education law since the 1944 Act. I seem to remember that if one disposes of a voluntary-controlled school which has been closed, three-fourteenths of the proceeds go to the local parish because of the use that it makes of it for Sunday school and other purposes. The purpose of the amendment is to continue that practice so that the foundation governors may have the use of the school for the purpose of a Sunday school or, if it is next to the church, to prevent noisy alternative use during divine worship on a Sunday.
	This amendment will require regulations to provide that the foundation governors of a controlled school can control the use of the school premises on Sundays and that in a school with a trust deed the use of the premises must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the trust deed. With those brief remarks I have put the thrust of the amendment. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will be sympathetic.

Baroness Blatch: In my rather amateur way, Amendment No. 137 tries to achieve the same ends as that of the right reverend Prelate. I am not territorial about the amendment, but it is important to safeguard the rights of trustees where school premises are held in trust for a voluntary-aided or a foundation school.
	The two lines of Clause 30 state:
	"Regulations may make provision relating to the control by the governing body of a maintained school of the occupation and use of school premises".
	There is no caveat there at all. If Clause 30 is to remain part of the Bill, it needs to be qualified in some way. Therefore, depending on what the Minister says in response, I would be prepared to give way to the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate, because I believe it would achieve the same end as Amendment No. 136.
	However, I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 30 should stand part of the Bill. I am not absolutely certain that this provision is necessary. Again, now that we have so much self-government in schools, is it not possible to leave schools in charge of their own affairs? During the time that we had grant-maintained schools—and even now that we have foundation schools—schools proved themselves to be very responsible. They know all their duties under statute as regards providing education. Indeed, there are so many rules and regulations that guide what they do.
	Let us take, for example, Clauses 20, 25 and 26. Clause 20 deals with the general responsibility for the conduct of the school; Clause 25 sets out the powers of the governing body to provide community facilities in the first place; and Clause 26 sets out the limits on the power to provide community facilities. I cannot believe that Clause 30 is necessary. Therefore, although I support the right reverend Prelate in his amendment—and/or my amendment—I must at least argue, albeit briefly, that Clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall begin by speaking to Amendment No. 135. I can confirm that we have no intention whatever of altering any existing local education authority rights regarding the occupation or control of school premises. I am pleased to be able to give a clear commitment that provision in both those areas will remain as currently defined in Schedule 13 to the School Standards and Framework Act l998. This means that there will be no reduction in the control of the occupation and use of premises by either the education authority or individual governing bodies from that which they are currently permitted to exercise, as set out in Schedule 13.
	The reason for moving these provisions into regulations is that, as they currently exist, there are five pages of schedules containing many provisions, which, frankly, are too detailed. Building on what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, we are trying to simplify this and reproduce the important aspects within regulations. That is the motivation behind our move in this direction.
	I turn to Amendment No. 136. I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that existing rights in relation to foundation and voluntary schools regarding the control and use of land will also be preserved in regulations. This means that the current provision in paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 13 to the 1998 Act, which allows for foundation governors of a voluntary controlled school to determine the use to which school premises are put on Sundays, will be maintained in the regulations that we intend to develop.
	All rights of ownership, control and use of land will remain with exactly the same parties—be it the local education authority, governing body or trustees—where such rights currently rest. The rights of trustees under trust deeds currently provided for in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 13 will be preserved.
	I turn specifically to Amendment No. 137, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This amendment raises similar concerns about the position of trustees. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that in no way will Clause 30 alter the ownership of school premises. We shall ensure that provisions in regulations will reflect all rights of ownership, control and use of land, as they currently exist. I should like to place on the record that regulations will provide for the rights of trustees in the terms currently provided for in paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 13 to the 1998 Act.
	Perhaps I may say a few words about the clause stand part element of this debate. We believe that the control, occupation and use of school premises by governing bodies are important issues, but we do not believe that it is essential to have the detailed provisions set out in primary legislation. By transferring to regulations from guidance those provisions mainly relating to the process and conduct of statutory responsibilities, we believe that we shall create a more flexible framework of governance legislation that will allow any future minor adjustments to be made. This clause is part of our commitment to achieve that aim.
	The clause provides for regulations to define the control of occupation and use of school premises by governing bodies during and outside school hours. As I said, ownership will remain unaffected. I can confirm that we shall be making no material changes to the ownership and control of school bodies. Therefore, the existing rights of the respective parties will be preserved. However, we shall consider whether some of the administrative detail—for example, measures setting up transfer of control agreements, and so on—may be candidates for deregulation.
	This is an important clause because it allows us to put such provisions into regulations. Given those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for what was probably the clearest and most positive reassurance about local authorities that she has given during our debate on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I thank the Minister for her generous reply and for the Ascension Day present that I eventually got. I am most grateful.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
	Clause 30 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.